MENU

Sections

More

November 14, 2025

Cambridge Spy

Nonpartisan and Education-based News for Cambridge

Point of View Opinion

Character Is Policy by Johnny O’Brien

by
Leave a Comment

Perhaps you—like me and most of my friends—have a grave difficulty discussing politics in our hyper-partisan nation. We often report that civil debates with right-leaning friends are off-limits for fear of destroying valued relationships. When we try, too often the opening response sounds something like, “I agree that Trump is an ogre…but I like his policies!” or “His character stinks, but I love his programs!”

That sounds rationa,l but is actually a cop-out to squash all further conversation. And it is highly irrational.

Why? Because it is extremely difficult to dislike a leader’s character while liking their policies. They are inextricably linked. A leader’s character (like our own) consists of core values and central beliefs that determine how we behave and the key choices we make (like positions and policies).

If a leader is kind, honest, and generous, his policies will be rooted in integrity, care for others, and the common good. A leader who is vengeful, greedy, and dishonest will adopt policies that are vindictive, untruthful, and self-serving. It is impossible to separate the baggage from the bag.

Character drives a leader’s policy and behavior in fundamental ways. To separate the two (as happens in our debates across the aisle) would be like saying, “I don’t care if the coach or teacher of my grandkids is dishonest, mean, and selfish—as long as he wins games and my child gets good grades!” Character determines how we do things. And moral makeup matters.

One of my favorite quotes during my 40-year career in Leadership and Character Development is:

“Character is who you are in the dark.”

It is how we behave when we know nobody’s watching. To be a true leader—or even lead a good life—we have to confront our demons and cover-ups. At least that was once true.

Now we have a President who boasts about his vile character in the light of day. His greed, vengeance, and vanity are broadcast in public to be seen and praised by those who fear him and those who can gain from his bribes and handouts. Or it could be confronted. Given that this President has unprecedented control of all three branches of government—and the recently granted “complete immunity while governing” from the Supreme Court—it needs to be confronted now.

It is clear that serious damage has been done to our democracy by President Trump in just eight months. Americans who care about our sacred Republic must establish some checks and balances soon. The midterm election, roughly one year away, is the best way to do that.

That means not only getting all citizens who are terrified by this self-proclaimed “Dictator” out to vote—it also means getting some of our center-right Republican friends to join us. And that requires reopening the dreaded political debate with friends we know are good and principled people, which is most of them. The ones who dislike the constant bragging, lying, hurting of vulnerable people, abandoning of allies, while amassing huge personal wealth.

We must risk the discomfort of raising the “character question” and tying this President’s moral makeup to his destructive policies. And our ask is not that large: that one of the three branches of government (the House) gain a slight Democratic majority so it can provide a small measure of restraint on this dangerous “King.” All significant power would remain with Republicans.

The wolf is at the door. We must rise up and defend democracy.

Clearly, our resistance should include active protest (like “No Kings”), speaking or writing opinion pieces (like this one), and stumping for honest candidates. But we all have decent friends who do not want our hateful President to go unchecked. It is not too early to reopen a caring, candid exchange with Republican friends one year out from the Midterms.

Trump announces daily how destructive and vindictive he intends to be. The most shocking example occurred recently at the funeral of Charlie Kirk. His grieving widow, Erika, said that she forgave her husband’s killer:

“I forgive him because it is what Christ did and what Charlie would do.”

In reply, Donald Trump declared:

“I hate my opponent and I don’t want the best for them.”

What kind of policies and executive orders do we expect from this character?

Johnny O’Brien is a former president of the Milton Hershey School and the institution’s first alumnus to lead it. Orphaned at a young age, he was raised at the school and graduated in 1961 before earning a degree from Princeton University and pursuing graduate studies at Johns Hopkins. O’Brien later founded Renaissance Leadership, a firm that coached executives at major corporations. In 2003, he returned to Hershey as its president. He is also the author of Semisweet: An Orphan’s Journey Through the School the Hersheys Built, and currently lives in Easton.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Trump Policies Disrupt the Eastern Shore Soybean Market by Wilson Dean

by
Leave a Comment

Last November, voters expressed a strong preference for President Trump’s ability to manage the economy over that of his opponent. However, the first 10 months of the new Administration have prompted strong concerns from both sides of the political aisle. Farmers have been adversely affected more than most by Trump’s decisions. A good example of this is how his policies are affecting the soybean market, which is extremely important to Maryland’s Eastern Shore.

Soybeans are the second most important crop grown in Maryland, exceeded only by corn in value of production. The Maryland Eastern Shore is the stronghold of the state’s soybean production, with the most prominent counties being Queen Anne’s, Caroline, Talbot, Kent, and Somerset.

President Trump has taken action in two separate policy areas that have had a negative impact on the soybean market. First, one of his first steps as President was to allow Elon Musk (in his own words in February) to “spend the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper,” referencing the roughly 90 percent cuts in contracts for non-military foreign aid that the U.S. offers to needy countries.

The U.S. has long supported American farmers by purchasing and sending soybeans abroad to help nations unable to support themselves because of such factors as droughts and poverty. Soybeans sent as aid are used to address worldwide hunger and malnutrition, as well as to provide feed for livestock. The precise numerical impact on soybean exports for this purpose is not yet known, but soybeans are a major component of the U.S. foreign aid system.

The second source of President Trump having upended the soybean market is through his highly controversial tariff policies. His approach to tariffs has been widely criticized by both liberal and conservative economists as inconsistent and erratic, without any measurable strategy or goal. Trump’s aggressive approach towards China–amounting to more than a 57 percent average tariff on Chinese goods–has created very serious repercussions for U.S. soybean producers. 

China is responsible for purchasing 52 percent of U.S. soybean exports, accounting for $12.6 billion to U.S. farmers last year. In turn, soybean exports represent more than half of US production, so changes to the overseas picture have a profound effect on the total soybean market. Retaliating against Trump’s moves against it, China had been cutting its purchases of U.S. soybeans almost in half since Trump initiated his attacks on the country. Since May, China has totally stopped U.S. soybean purchases, in addition to instituting a 37 percent tariff on U.S. soybean imports. 

It gets worse. Even though Trump has agreed to bail out Argentina’s flagging economy with $20 billion as a means of supporting the country’s far-right President heading into an election, Argentina has turned around and dropped its tax on its own soybean sales, prompting China to make a massive one-million-ton purchase from that nation. This move signals China’s attempt to vastly reduce, if not simply drop, the U.S. as a soybean supplier on a permanent basis. In response, Trump’s Agriculture Secretary, Brooke Rollins, has said American farmers need to stop selling to “a country that isn’t aligned with our values,” promoting a dubious economic plan to place ideological constraints on America’s farmers.

How badly Eastern Shore soybean producers will be hurt by Trump’s aid and trade policies remains to be seen, but the outlook is not positive. Even though Maryland Eastern Shore soybean farmers benefit from high demand from nearby domestic poultry producers, the harm to farmers will likely be significant. Why? Because U.S. soybean exports to China flow from both the East and West coasts of the U.S., Eastern Shore soybean farmers will now likely see greater competition from producers in nearby states. For example, soybeans are Virginia’s top agricultural export, valued at more than $1.4 billion. 

Furthermore, this competition will put downward pressure on already low prices for this commodity, which has fallen from $13/bushel a few years ago to $10 in the current market. Farmers’ profit picture at this moment is somewhere between minimal to non-existent. Further darkening the picture ahead, Trump’s new tariffs on foreign steel and fertilizer are simultaneously raising production costs for soybean farmers. 

Soybean production is at a high level this year, with storage facilities nearly full and there is increasing concern that exporting firms will stop purchases in light of the declining market.

President Trump has said that he wants to help farmers out with funds collected by the U.S. on foreign imports subject to his tariffs. The Trump Administration has said it soon will make an announcement to this effect. Sources also indicate that this plan is still under discussion at this writing. Trump spokespersons claim that it will take several months before any money might be forthcoming.

The bottom line for Maryland Eastern Shore soybean farmers is that even if bailout money materializes, it is not what is needed. American Soybean Association President Caleb Ragland has called the offer a “Band-Aid.”  Besides, it being an insufficient amount to account for losses already incurred, he indicated that American soybean producers need additional markets and higher prices–exactly what the Trump trade and aid policies are closing off. 

As for our own Representative Andy Harris, there is no evidence he has made any attempt to formulate a solution to assist Eastern Shore soybean farmers (or, if he has, there is no evidence he has been effective in doing so).

Both President Trump and Representative Harris frequently claim to support relieving agricultural (and other) markets from government interference. Ironically, in the case of soybeans, the government programs they have initiated are, in fact, the cause of a powerful negative predicament for Eastern Shore farmers and their markets.

Wilson Dean was the Owner/President of a publishing and consulting firm for 34 years, providing economic, energy, and environmental policy and pricing forecasts for global clients.  He lives in Talbot County, enjoying kayaking, wildlife, and spending time with his grandchildren.   

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

As the Supreme Court Term Begins… Some Reflections by Margaret Andersen

by
Leave a Comment

As the U.S. Supreme Court begins its new term and at a time when public confidence in all national institutions, including the Supreme Court, is at an all-time low, I am heartened by remembering how one letter, sent long ago to Associate Justice Harry Blackmun, can remind us of the heart beneath a justice’s robe, even at a time when a justice was under vicious attack by political opponents. I am also reminded of what it can mean to bring joy to a justice’s chamber. And I am thinking about my long-gone dogs. 

I named my two dogs, who were abandoned as puppies by their owners, after Justices Thurgood Marshall and Harry Blackmun, two giants in judicial history. Thurgood Marshall, the first African American to serve on the Court (appointed in 1967), was touted for his long-standing commitment to civil rights, including early cases that prohibited racially restrictive real estate covenants. In another of his decisions, he invalidated the white primary, long a method by which southern Democrats maintained their political power. He is, though, best known for arguing the landmark case Brown vs the Board of Education before the Supreme Court in 1954.  A staunch advocate for people who had too long been denied legal protections in the United States, Marshall retired from the Court in 1991 and died in 1993. 

Likewise, Associate Justice Harry A. Blackmun left an indelible mark on U.S. judicial history. Appointed to the Court by President Richard Nixon in 1970, Blackmun’s early decisions on the Court were most aligned with conservative justices. Over time, however, his decisions became more in tune with those of more liberal justices. He was passionate in this support for abortion rights and defended affirmative action. Writing in the 1978 Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke decision, allowing some consideration of race in university admissions but disallowing racial quotas, Blackmun wrote, “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we much treat them differently.” 

Blackmun’s support for abortion rights was unyielding. The very week we adopted our dogs (in 1989), Blackmun wrote a scathing dissent on the case Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, the first Supreme Court case to chip away at the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade. In his dissent, Blackmun wrote, “For today, the women of this Nation still retain the liberty to control their destinies. But the signs are evident and very ominous, and a chill wind blows.” 

How prescient that dissent—one of the reasons I so admired Justice Blackmun. How did two photos of my dogs ended up in Harry Blackmun’s papers housed in the Library of Congress? 

Very few dogs find themselves memorialized in the Library of Congress. Dogs included famous people, such as TV host Ed Sullivan, singer Billie Holiday, actress Joan Caulfield, and actor Jimmy Durante mostly own those. Also included are some photos of national dog show winners. The Library of Congress is the largest library in the world, housing documents that tell the history of the United States by documenting and preserving some of the nation’s most important records. These are treasured archives, a repository of national civilization and creativity.

The Library of Congress hardly seems a place where ordinary neighborhood dogs would be seen. I am not a celebrity, nor a Washington insider, nor have my dogs ever been in a competitive dog show. Yet, sure enough, my dogs’ photographs are included in the hundreds of boxes that archive the work of Supreme Court Associate Justice Harry A. Blackmun: Box 1445, Folio #9.

When my husband and I took in these puppies, the house next door to us was a concrete block shack, owned by a notoriously obnoxious absentee landlord. The tenants, seemingly living on the margins of poverty, absconded in the middle of the night, probably owing back rent and fearful of the landlord’s well-known violent temper. Left behind were the mother dog and four newborn puppies. A reclusive neighbor who lived in the woods across the street took in the mother dog, but the puppies were left to fend for themselves. One poor pup was hit and killed in the road. A second pup was adopted by a neighbor’s friend. Left behind were two little black lab puppies.

Even before the tenants fled, the two puppies had been frisky, though largely ignored by their owners. The puppies liked scampering around on the riverbank, occasionally falling into the Chesapeake Bay where our house is located. My husband would jump in our rowboat, row to their rescue, drag them out of the water, and bring them back home. Later, they never seemed to like water—odd since they were mostly black labs, though not purebreds.  

When the dogs’ owners fled, we took in the two puppies, thinking we could find a home for them. We already had two cats and never intended to add dogs to our household, certainly not two of them! We tried to find people who would adopt the two puppies, preferably as a pair because they were brothers. We considered posting a “free puppies” sign at the local market but rejected that plan when we heard that puppies so publicly advertised might be picked up by an unscrupulous puppy mill operator. 

Once they were living on our porch, we became very attached. After a few weeks of trying to find a new home for them, we relented and decided to keep them. Like other dog owners, we tried to find fitting names for our newly adopted pups. It was 1989. The nation was emerging from the Reagan years—a time when many hard-fought civil rights were being retracted. George Bush Sr. was the President. Roe v. Wade had established the constitutional right to reproductive freedom in 1973, but the movement to overturn Roe was simmering. As someone who was teaching university courses on racial and gender inequality, I was keenly aware of the backlash against women and people of color that our nation was facing. 

I told my husband that, given the times, we had to name these two dogs for men who had done something good for women. I had long admired U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall, then retired from the Court. Our two dogs became Blackmun and Marshall.

I often thought about writing to the two justices about their namesakes, but life was busy and I didn’t do it until 1994. Moved by Blackmun’s announcement of his pending retirement, my husband and I drafted a letter to Justice Blackmun explaining why our dogs bore his and Thurgood Marshall’s names. The letter we sent, signed by my husband, included two pictures of the dogs together on our front lawn.

Our letter said:  

I didn’t really expect a response, but only a few days later, and much to our surprise, a letter on embossed Supreme Court stationery showed up in our mail! Written with wry humor, the grace of a gentleman, and with a subtle reminder of his positions on conception, Blackmun’s letter to us was hand-signed. 

We cherished that letter and our two amazing dogs, but life went on. Then, in 2004, things took an unexpected turn.

In honor of the fiftieth anniversary of the Brown v. Board court decision, the University of Illinois College of Law, like many academic institutions that year, sponsored a symposium about the impact of the Brown decision and invited me to present a paper. I gladly accepted and wrote an article on the implications of the Brown decision for different groups. I had presented many conference papers prior to this commemorative event. Still, I had never spoken at a law school or to a room packed with mostly law professors and other legal scholars. I am a sociologist. That is my usual audience. I was nervous and felt very out of my element. I knew no one on the featured panels and hardly anyone in the audience. But I knew my paper was solid, despite my anxiety about its reception. 

As I wrapped up my presentation, I thought it had gone well and considered adding that I had named my two dogs for the two justices I so admired. It seemed a little corny to bring up my dogs in such an esteemed and unaccustomed, for me, place, but oh well…I did it. The audience seemed to appreciate it. I sat down to a round of applause.

The next speaker was introduced as a law professor at Duke University. When she began her remarks, she expressed her appreciation for being with known colleagues and meeting new people…a common way speakers warm up their presentations. She then said, “And I am especially pleased to meet someone I have a special connection to…Maggie Andersen.” I was floored! I had never met her, did not follow her field of legal study, and could not imagine how she thought she knew me. She continued, “Years ago I was a clerk in Justice Blackmun’s chambers. One morning, he called all his clerks together because he had received a letter from ‘some professor in Maryland,’ and he wanted to share it with us. Treating his clerks to breakfast, he read the letter out loud.” She then said, directly to me, “You will never know how happy your letter made him!” She proceeded to deliver a very good analysis of the impact of the Brown decision on disability rights. 

As we sat at the symposium on Brown, the release of Blackmun’s papers to the Library of Congress was very much in the news. Blackmun had died five years earlier (in 1999) but had arranged for a quick release of his papers to the Library of Congress. His papers were released only five years after his death, which is unusual because most justices do not have their papers released until 50 years after their death. 

Because of the prominence of Blackmun’s papers in the daily news, I asked the former clerk if she thought our letter—and the photos of our dogs—would then be in the Library of Congress. She said, “No doubt! That’s how important your letter was to him.” As the session ended, she said she wanted to rush right out and call Justice Blackmun’s former secretary because she knew the secretary would be excited to know she had met me! 

I later learned, by reading Juan Williams’ excellent biography of Justice Blackmun, that at the time Blackmun received our letter, he was besieged by hate mail from those who strenuously objected to his more progressive opinions—particularly his defense of Roe. Our letter was a rare praise song!

Now, even more years later and with both dogs long gone, Blackmun’s fears have come to pass. More than a chill wind blows today. There is a full-blown hurricane toppling women’s rights, smashing civil rights, and crushing institutions themselves. The assault on reproductive rights is no longer directed at one man, but, rather, at entire institutions. Confidence in the judicial system, including the Supreme Court, has hit an all-time low, as has public faith in all national institutions. Even when under attack by the right, probably overwhelmed by case work, and fearful for women in America, Harry Blackmun found the time to pen a letter, honoring not only our dogs, but also the best of America: national institutions that adhere to American values, the cherished connection between public servants and citizens, and the protection of civil and constitutional rights of all Americans. How I long for the values and graciousness that Justice Blackmun demonstrated. My next dog, if a female, will be named Sonia. Or, should we acquire a litter, maybe Sonia, Ketanji, and Elena—women who are speaking truth to power. I miss Blackmun’s wisdom on the Court, and I miss my dogs.

With thanks to Patrick Kirwin, Manuscript Reference Librarian, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress and to Connie Cartledge, Senior Archivist, Library of Congress

Dr. Margaret L. Andersen is the Elizabeth and Edward Rosenberg Professor Emerita and Founder and Executive Director of the President’s Diversity Initiative at the University of Delaware, who resides in Oxford.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Opinion: Marylanders Need Pro-Business Policies by Jamie McNealy

by
Leave a Comment

In today’s digital age, entrepreneurs often rely on online tools to make their mark. Amid recent Maryland tax hikes and new foreign tariffs, digital marketing is a critical way for small business owners to survive amidst economic uncertainty, boost their revenue, and maintain a formidable presence in the market.

To be as competitive as possible, Maryland needs policies that support new, innovative businesses looking to call our state home. As part of that, it is crucial to protect the balance between encouraging innovation and reasonable legislation. Small business owners often work long hours and invest their own money in their company. Their restaurants and clothing stores keep you and your families fed and dressed. Similarly, local startups invent technologies that aid not only our community but the world at large. Policies that support their efforts and ensure they can continue their livelihoods without unnecessary friction are critical to keep the small business community afloat.

Unfortunately, some of our elected officials have opted to impose burdensome restrictions on the very businesses that drive our economy. If we want to grow our economy and welcome more businesses to our state, we should instead take a more pro-business position like that of Virginia, which has resulted in a $9 billion investment in innovation and infrastructure in the state. Unfortunately, Maryland’s current restrictions make the landscape less appealing to businesses – both big and small – that are considering a presence in our state, damaging our business ecosystem’s long-term competitiveness.

Due to policy changes set to go into effect this fall, digital marketing strategies may be in jeopardy. In 2024, the Maryland Online Data Privacy Act (MODPA) was passed and will soon impose harmful restrictions on small businesses that will particularly affect their ability to access the tools and data they need to market themselves and connect with their customers. Policies like this one could have detrimental effects on our small business ecosystem, creating uncertainty for small businesses, making them more risk-averse, which could stall innovation in the state.

MODPA’s sweeping privacy laws are more stringent than comparable legislation in other states, making Maryland an outlier and creating needless friction for Maryland’s small businesses that are trying to keep up with others in the region. In fact, the Maryland Chamber of Commerce has already noted that surrounding states’ small businesses outperform ours in fields including just plain survival––which, in 2024, dropped from 19% to 12% in Maryland––and growth.

When the legislation goes into effect in October 2025, its restrictions could prevent many businesses from connecting with local consumers in the most effective manner. A 2025 proposed fix offered adjustments to protect small businesses’ ability to utilize online tools like digital marketing technologies while defending consumers’ right to privacy. Unfortunately, lawmakers did not advance this business-friendly proposal, and now Maryland small businesses will pay the price.

Going forward, we need policies that will make Maryland a regional and national business leader. Our elected officials should view the recent investment in Virginia as a shining example of what is possible when states maintain pro-business policies and welcome innovation. For the sake of Marylanders and the success of our state, it is critical that Maryland sits at the forefront of invention. We cannot afford to let overbearing regulations damage our small businesses’ competitiveness. We must enact plans that will support the businesses that support our state.

Jamie McNealey serves as the Owner and National Director of the National College Lacrosse League (NCLL). Based in Severna Park, the NCLL currently includes 90 colleges and universities in 16 states. A graduate of the Severn School and the Johns Hopkins University, where he lettered for four years, McNealey has coached men’s lacrosse at the high school, collegiate and professional levels.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Character Rot: Sounding the Alarm by Johnny O’Brien

by
Leave a Comment

Most of us are aware of the damage Donald Trump is doing to government service, freedom of expression, our universities, and democracy. And the moral decay our “national role model” is inflicting upon America with his daily lying, greed, spite, and vindictiveness.

But most of us are less aware of the grave threat Trump and his spineless minions represent to our precious children, just by broadcasting his malignant narcissism every day. It is not too early to sound the alarm.

For starters, just picture our vulnerable teens bombarded by their commander-in-chief, who rules as a greedy, lawless king—where kindness, honesty, humility, and cooperation are for “suckers and losers.” Our kids, with their online tools and savvy, know this. They see and hear it every day. The most powerful leader in the world (their “leader”) is trashing the most sacred values that have defined America since its founding.

And to what effect on our coming-of-age children? At a minimum, confusion about what behavior or character counts. More frequently, they embrace the loss of moral guardrails and behave (as in Golding’s Lord of the Flies) any way they want.

This is not a theory. I first saw it recently at a boarding school for needy children I once led. It has over 2,000 students and prides itself on building character. Just four months into Trump’s leadership model, more students are flouting rules and debasing their school’s Sacred Values.

When challenged, responses include:

  • “Why should I be kind to a weak classmate?”

  • “Why do I need to tell the truth?”

  • “Why should I share credit with a teammate?”

The school’s Sacred Values—like Integrity and Mutual Trust—are being routinely tested.

Note: These behaviors seem to be more manifest in boys, who are more likely to challenge norms and authority (and who already have excessive learning difficulties these days). And, BTW, where were these teens during Trump’s first term? In late elementary and early middle school, where early character formation is founded.

What fate, then, for our children and their character? What is the future for the sacred values of our critical institutions?

Awareness of a real and present danger is always the first step to combating a serious threat. “This too will pass” is not a sufficient response to 8–12 years of socially induced character decay.

Such a grave challenge will fall first to our parents… and then to our teachers and coaches, who influence behavior the most. And then to our community, church, and political leaders—who, when organized, can effectively resist the moral decay.

But also to each of us who care about America’s character and the moral fiber of our children—those of us who still value kindness, honesty, and the greater common good, and do not want our young folks to become the “Greedy Me Generation.”

Johnny O’Brien is a former president of the Milton Hershey School and its first alumnus to lead the institution. Orphaned at a young age, he was raised at the school and graduated in 1961 before earning a degree from Princeton University and pursuing graduate studies at Johns Hopkins. O’Brien later founded Renaissance Leadership, a firm that coached executives at major corporations. In 2003, he returned to Hershey as its president. He is also the author of Semisweet: An Orphan’s Journey Through the School the Hersheys Built, and currently lives in Easton.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

The Political is Personal: Reflections on DEI by Margaret Andersen

by
Leave a Comment

As the women’s movement was unfolding in the late 1960s, all across the country women gathered in small, informal groups called consciousness raising (CR) groups—conversations that helped us identify the societal origins of problems we were facing in our individual lives. Domestic violence, rape, job discrimination, illegal abortion, the lack of birth control—you name it: These were experienced as personal problems, but their origins were in society and required political, not just personal solutions. For so many of us in my generation, “the personal is political” was a rallying call–a call for change not just in our personal lives, but in society and our social institutions.

This was a time (and it wasn’t that long ago) when there were no women in what we studied in school. Colleges were places where women could only wear dresses. Blue jeans, which became the symbol of a generation, were forbidden on campus—until women revolted. Blue jeans were a symbol of the working class and wearing them, as suggested by SNCC (the activist group, Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee), was a symbol of solidarity with the working class. Women demanded their rights—on campus, at home, at work: everywhere! 

We embarked on a course of compensatory education, trying to learn through any means necessary all that had been left out of what we were taught. There were few studies about women; even medical science routinely excluded women from research samples. When I was in graduate school (where I had no women professors), what we learned about women came from newsprint pamphlets, our CR groups, and whatever we could put our hands on that taught us about women’s history, lives, artistic contributions, and everyday experiences. This was the birth of Women’s Studies—or what is now often called gender studies.

My compensatory education had to offset all I had not learned about women, about people of color, about LGBTQ experiences—in other words, my education excluded more than half the world’s population. Ironically, the term “compensatory education” at the time usually referred to what was perceived as inadequate education for people of color in racially segregated schools, but we all need an education that teaches us about the full range of human experience.

As time proceeded, our efforts to “integrate” education by including the work, experiences, and contributions of women, people of color, immigrants, and LGBTQ people became institutionalized in women’s studies programs, ethnic and racial studies programs, LGBTQ studies, and—yes–diversity initiatives: the now demonized DEI!

Now the assault on so-called DEI feels like a punch in the gut to me. I have devoted fifty plus years of my education and the education I have passed on to others in the interest of an inclusive, not exclusive, curriculum. Scholarship in these diverse areas of study has flourished and people have learned that having more inclusive educational and workplace settings actually improves performance for ALL groups. What is it that is so threatening about DEI that powerful interests are now trying to wipe it out of every institution?

I’ll hazard a guess that most opponents of so-called DEI cannot tell you what it is. Of course, many of us have sat through boring workshops intended to raise our awareness of “DEI.” A lot of us have raised our understanding of what changes—both personal and political—are necessary to achieve a more fair and equitable society—in all its dimensions. To me, DEI is just about that—respecting and understanding the enormous diversity of people living and working all around us; desiring more equitable (just plain fair) opportunities for people to achieve their dreams; and being inclusive, not exclusive, in how we think and who we think about—and value.

I take the current assault on DEI as a personal affront—an affront on all I have worked for over fifty plus years as a professor, author, and college administrator. The time is frightening and, like many of my friends, colleagues, and family members, most days I just want to crawl in a hole. I feel powerless to change the retrograde actions that are happening all around us, every day. But the changes I have witnessed in my own lifetime are vast and should not be taken for granted. We must speak out even when it feels like there are big risks in doing so. 

Even putting these thoughts in print feels scary given the retribution that is now all too common. But I ask you to remember: I am your neighbor, might have been your teacher, am not a criminal. I am an American and love my country, as I hear you do too. But before you post some nasty comment to this letter, I ask you also to think about whether you want your child, your friend, your neighbor to grow up in a country where we learn little, if anything, about people’s experiences other than our own and where powerful interests ask you to ignore the hard work of so many who fought to bring you a more inclusive, just, and open society.  

I also ask you to deeply care about anyone, maybe in your family or friendship network, who loves a lesbian or gay daughter or sibling, even when the coming out process asked them to change everything they thought they knew. Love those who cherish and embrace a trans member of the family even when their old beliefs were upended by this reality. Love those who have fully welcomed an interracial couple and their children into an otherwise all white family. Care about anyone from an immigrant background who came to this nation to seek a better life for themselves and their children.  Know their experiences; don’t believe the myths.

To all of you, my heart is with you even as I rage! 

Dr Margaret L. Andersen is the Elizabeth and Edward Rosenberg Professor Emerita, Founder and Executive Director of the President’s Diversity Initiative, University of Delaware, who lives in Oxford.

 

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

New report reveals value of resource conservation for Shore businesses by John Horner

by
Leave a Comment

I consider it a privilege to live and work in a place so many Marylanders associate with vacations, retirement, recreation, and quiet retreats. But as good as our parks, rivers, beaches, and charming towns are for those very activities—the Eastern Shore is equally a place of everyday living and hard honest work, schools and small businesses, boat builders and watermen. At Easton Utilities, we are invested in it all – whether we’re powering the air conditioning in a vacation home so that a young family can escape a summer heat wave, keeping the lights on in a farmer’s winter workshop, helping a local restaurant cook with natural gas, or providing high speed internet to a long-awaited new healthcare facility.

It’s easy to see how a utility company economically benefits the residents and visitors of the Shore. But all of our services would be irrelevant if not for the benefits provided by our water, woodlands, clean air, wildlife, fertile soil, beaches, and abundant seafood. These natural resources offer more than an admirable landscape and deep cultural identity, they drive our economy. Eastern Shore Land Conservancy (ESLC), in collaboration with the Delmarva Restoration and Conservation Network (DRCN), recently released a report titled, “Economic Impact of Natural Resources Conservation on the Delmarva Peninsula.” This comprehensive study highlights the undeniable benefits of the Eastern Shore’s natural resources.

Since I first began at Easton Utilities, we have made sustainability a priority. Our Easton Sustainability Campus is constantly developing new innovative ways to pursue our sustainability mission of conserving natural resources in a way that is economically viable. Located at our Enhanced Nutrient Removal (ENR) Wastewater Treatment Facility, this campus also houses our cost-effective 2 MW solar array which was significantly grant-funded by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). In fact, our ENR Wastewater Treatment Facility’s exceptional performance regarding nitrogen and phosphorous discharge concentrations has resulted in additional grant funding year over year from MDE. These funds are reinvested in the wastewater facility for ongoing operations and maintenance undertakings in order to continue optimal performance.

In addition, from our annual tree planting initiative to our pollinator habitat, we remain committed to enhancing the quality of life in our beloved coastal communities by making environmental stewardship a priority and seeking out cost-effective projects which can help us to address the needs of both our place and our people.

Now more than ever, ESLC’s economic report reveals just how critical conservation efforts are if we want to preserve our beautiful peninsula home and unique way of life. Land conservation anchors environmental stewardship; it’s a cornerstone for preserving the Eastern Shore’s cultural heritage and its economy. By safeguarding Delmarva’s natural resources, we ensure that future generations can experience the beauty, traditions, and productive, meaningful work that define this unique region.

In my role as the President and CEO of Easton Utilities, I am ever mindful of what drives the Eastern Shore quality of life for both our employees and our customers. This new report shares in numbers what we all feel daily: the natural resources of the Shore keep us afloat. I am confident that Easton Utilities, through our partnership with the Town of Easton and Mayor Megan Cook, will continue to do everything in our power to conserve our precious region while providing for our community, and now with an even greater understanding of the essential value of our natural resources.

John Horner is the president and CEO of Easton Utilities

The report can be read here.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Moore’s Misguided Tax Proposal: Punishing success, ignoring reform by Clayton Mitchell

by
Leave a Comment

Governor Wes Moore’s declaration that raising taxes would require a “high bar” seems to have been more rhetoric than reality. For many Maryland taxpayers, this supposed bar appears distressingly low. The governor’s plan to impose higher taxes on households earning over $1 million and individuals earning over $500,000 annually is a stark departure from his high-bar promise and a policy laden with inequities and unintended consequences.

Maryland’s fiscal challenges are undeniable. With revenue growth projected at less than 2% for fiscal year 2025 and under 1% for 2026, and mandatory spending on programs like Medicaid expected to rise by 9% this year alone, the state faces a daunting budgetary imbalance.

Governor Moore’s proposal includes $2 billion in discretionary spending cuts. However, these cuts are paired with targeted tax increases on higher earners. While the absence of increases to sales or property taxes may provide some comfort, the broader approach of selective taxation undermines the governor’s commitment to fairness and economic growth.

The recent Gonzales Poll underscores Marylanders’ skepticism of new taxation schemes, with nearly two-thirds of respondents expressing opposition to tax increases as a means of addressing the state’s fiscal challenges. This sentiment highlights the electorate’s demand for fiscal discipline and innovative solutions over the well-trodden path of raising taxes. Selective taxation, regardless of how it is framed, is inherently unjust.

As Senator Stephen Hershey (R-District 36) aptly noted, raising taxes on higher earners risks driving these individuals—and their substantial contributions to state revenues—out of Maryland entirely. This is not a theoretical concern. Data from previous tax hikes show an exodus of successful individuals to states with more favorable tax climates, leaving Maryland with an even smaller tax base.

The notion of taxing those who have done “exceptionally well” financially might seem appealing in theory, but in practice, it becomes an exercise in punishing achievement. This policy is less about equity and more about window dressing, an attempt to placate voters while masking the underlying inefficiencies in Maryland’s fiscal management.

The threshold for who qualifies as having done “exceptionally well” financially will be crucial. If history is any guide, this definition is likely to skew lower than proposed during the legislative process, capturing not only the affluent but also many middle-class families who have diligently saved and invested. Governor Moore’s framing of this policy as “asking a little more” from the wealthy is, to borrow a phrase, “putting lipstick on a pig”.

Maryland’s reliance on mandatory spending growth is at the heart of this crisis. Programs like the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future, while laudable in their aims, require significant adjustments. Governor Moore has rightly noted that “adjustments” are necessary, but without genuine reform, mandatory spending will continue to balloon, exacerbating fiscal woes. Cutting only discretionary spending while leaving mandatory expenditures materially unchecked is akin to bailing water from a sinking ship without plugging the hole.

Governor Moore’s proposal to couple tax hikes on high earners with tax cuts for others and a reduction in the corporate tax rate sounds enticing on paper but is inherently flawed. This approach picks winners and losers in a manner that punishes achievement and stifles economic growth. Moreover, it fosters an anfractuous cycle: as discretionary spending is squeezed, the state will inevitably return to taxpayers—all taxpayers—for more revenue to fund an unsustainable status quo during the next few years.

The political dynamics in Annapolis further underscore the improbability of meaningful reform. As Senator Hershey predicted, little will be cut from the discretionary budget, taxes will be raised, and mandated spending will continue to expand unchecked. The legislature will “tax, spend, and turn the page” until next year, kicking the proverbial can down the road. Who among us doubts this outcome?

To chart a different course, Maryland must confront its fiscal realities with courage and clarity. Reforming the formulas that govern mandatory spending is imperative. Streamlining the state’s bureaucracy, as I argued in my December 11, 2024, Center Maryland column, must be a priority. Additionally, the state must cultivate economic growth by fostering a business-friendly environment, not by driving entrepreneurs and high earners away.

Governor Moore’s insistence that “taxes are a tactic, not an ideology” is worth remembering. But tactics, no matter how well-intentioned, must be rooted in sound strategy. Maryland’s path forward requires a disciplined, equitable approach to budgeting—one that respects all taxpayers, rewards achievement, and ensures the state’s fiscal health for generations to come. Anything less is a disservice to the millions who call Maryland home.

If Governor Moore can muster the fortitude to lead a true reorganization of Maryland’s sprawling bureaucracy and present a cogent, unapologetically realistic plan to revise and restrain mandatory spending in alignment with our fiscal realities, I will be the first to applaud his statesmanship. Indeed, I will champion his cause with unbridled vigor, for such an endeavor would be nothing short of heroic—a triumph of principle over expedience, of vision over inertia. It would be a testament that leadership, when rooted in prudence and equity, can rise above the clamor of demagoguery to chart a course worthy of Maryland’s promise and its people.

Clayton A. Mitchell, Sr. is a life-long Eastern Shoreman, an attorney, and former Chairman of the Maryland Department of Labor’s Board of Appeals.  He is co-host of the Gonzales/Mitchell Show podcast that discusses politics, business, and cultural issues. 

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Maryland’s fiscal apocalypse by Clayton A. Mitchell, Sr.

by
Leave a Comment

Maryland’s State Budget is teetering on the brink of an unprecedented financial collapse. The refusal to address formula-driven mandatory and entitlement spending threatens to thrust the state into a cycle of automatic “runaway” deficits, culminating in a financial “Extinction Level Event” in the near future. Despite the gravity of this crisis, political leaders have shied away from the structural reforms necessary to restore fiscal stability. Without bold action, Maryland’s taxpayers face a perilous future.

At the heart of Maryland’s fiscal woes is the rigid structure of formula-driven mandatory spending. These formulas mandate funding levels for key programs, such as education and Medicaid, irrespective of the state’s revenue performance. 

The failure to redefine and adjust the mandatory and entitlement spending based on economic realities is not a trivial oversight; it is a catastrophic misjudgment that will surely lead to a financial collapse from which there is no recovery. The state’s budget will collapse under its own weight—not due to inadequate taxation, not by trimming the discretionary budget, but because of otherwise well-meaning mandatory spending formulas whose costs become prohibitively unsustainable as they approach reality. Senate President Bill Ferguson underscored this reality, acknowledging that entitlement programs constitute the bulk of the growing deficit. Yet, political leaders have made little progress in reforming these spending mandates.

The illusion of fiscal health under the Hogan administration was largely sustained by federal COVID relief funds, which artificially created budget surpluses. These one-time funds masked the structural deficit and deferred difficult financial decisions. However, with the federal COVID money now evaporated, the true extent of Maryland’s budgetary challenges has come into sharp focus. Moreover, the upcoming Trump administration is likely to scale back discretionary federal spending, which has traditionally bolstered Maryland’s economy due to its reliance on federal contracts and agencies. This reduction in federal support will further exacerbate the state’s financial challenges, leaving Maryland ill-prepared to weather the storm.

Another significant drain on the state’s resources is Governor Moore’s commitment to “climate investments.” While addressing climate change is a noble goal, it is fundamentally a national and global issue, not a state-specific one. Maryland’s taxpayers should not be saddled with debt for initiatives that will have a de minimus impact on global climate trends. Prioritizing these expenditures over addressing the budget crisis is fiscally irresponsible and diverts attention from urgent structural reforms.

The recent Gonzales Poll reveals that a majority of Marylanders oppose tax increases to address the budget deficit. More than three-quarters of respondents oppose increases in income, property, and sales taxes. Even among those who strongly approve of Governor Moore’s performance, a significant majority oppose new taxes. This opposition underscores the political peril of pursuing tax hikes without first addressing the state’s spending problem.

While commendable as a good first “baby step”, Governor Moore’s recent proposal to save $50 million through government efficiencies is a drop in the ocean compared to the nearly $3 billion deficit – a deficit that is projected to double by 2030. While symbolic gestures like streamlining laptop procurement and reducing underutilized state vehicles are commendable, they fall far short of the comprehensive restructuring needed and do nothing to adjust mandatory spending. 

The Moore Administration’s reliance on outside consultants, such as Boston Consulting Group, further diminishes the credibility of these efforts. Not only will the consulting firm receive 20% of any identified savings, but this agreement could cost taxpayers up to $15 million over two years. This expenditure – which has been billed as a measure to save money- epitomizes the mismanagement of resources that has plagued the state.

In a December 11, 2024, opinion article in Center Maryland, I called upon Governor Moore to “reorganize Maryland’s bloated bureaucracy” for the first time in over 50 years before considering tax increases. This reorganization should include revisiting mandatory spending formulas, recalibrating spending mandates to align with the state’s fiscal realities, addressing unfunded pension liabilities that loom like a ticking time bomb, and eliminating redundant programs through a thorough review of state operations. Recent proposals that have been quietly suggested by legislative leaders such as Senate President Bill Ferguson – such as raising the capital gains tax – fail to address the structural deficit and punish success, should be outright rejected. 

Maryland is at a crossroads. The state’s leaders must confront the hard truths about its fiscal trajectory and embrace meaningful reforms. Without immediate decisive action, the combination of formula-driven spending, evaporating federal support, and misplaced priorities will lead Maryland toward a financial catastrophe. The time for half-measures is over; the state’s fiscal survival depends on bold, transformative leadership.

Clayton A. Mitchell, Sr. is a lifelong Eastern Shoreman, attorney, and former Maryland Department of Labor’s Board of Appeals Chairman.  He is co-host of the Gonzales/Mitchell Show podcast, which discusses politics, business, and cultural issues.

 

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Consent first, investigate later by Aubrey Sarvis

by
Leave a Comment

The Senate Armed Services Committee has scheduled a hearing for January 14th on the nomination of Pete Hegseth to be the next Secretary of Defense, notwithstanding that most committee senators have not been afforded an opportunity to see Mr. Hegseth’s F.B.I. background check or discuss with the nominee their concerns about reports involving sexual assault and harassment, a drinking problem, and mismanagement of two small veteran groups the nominee supervised. Usually a nominee for Secretary of Defense is eager to seize an opportunity to sit down with every senator on Armed Services to address allegations and alleviate any serious concerns. Not this time. This new approach is not consistent with how this committee exercises its advise and consent role.  Someone doesn’t want the Senate looking too closely at this young nominee’s background, recent behavior, and slim qualifications. The question is why.

Trump and incoming Vice-President Vance would have the Senate and American people believe there is nothing disturbing here and nothing more to learn about Mr. Hegseth’s fitness to serve in this critically important post.  Indeed, earlier this week the President-elect in a private caucus meeting with Senate Republicans apparently implored them to stick with him and Pete Hegseth, but he did not address any objections leveled against Mr. Hegseth’s nomination.  Last week Mr. Vance e-mailed me, and no doubt thousands of other veterans who had voted Republican at one time or another, “Patriot, They can’t go after President Trump and me.  We already beat them in a landslide! That’s why they’ve focused their efforts attacking a proud veteran like Pete Hegseth.”  Vance did not refute any of the arguments against the nomination, but he did ask me to sign Hegseth’s official letter of support that would soon flood senate offices.

Trump and Vance are making a weak case in behalf of this troubling nomination: senators should trust us and do as we ask. That isn’t the balance of power the framers of our Constitution had in mind. A president nominates, but he doesn’t get to manage the Senate process or dictate the vote outcome. Yes, historically, most senators have been inclined to vote for the nominee a president picks unless there are compelling reasons to object.  A refusal by the White House and a nominee to address and refute serious allegations would certainly be a compelling reason to vote against any nominee. Perhaps a review of the brief history of another troubling nomination for Secretary of Defense might be in order.  

In 1989, Republican President George H. W. Bush nominated the former Republican Chairman of the Senate Armed Services, John Tower of Texas, to be his Secretary of Defense. Opposition to the Tower nomination wasn’t about getting President Bush or embarrassing a credible nominee many respected.  Opposition to the Tower nomination went directly to concerns about the nominee’s excessive drinking, womanizing, unacceptable behavior towards women, and blackmail. In1989 the senate did not enjoy holding one of their own to the same standards they demanded of other nominees, but they could not deny what was before them in plain sight. What unfolded in public view over weeks was painful and could have been avoided by Mr. Tower withdrawing, but Tower insisted he had no problem with drinking or women, confident he and the Bush White House would prevail. After hearings and floor debate, the senate, having refused to be rushed or flattered or cowered did its job.  It did not consent to the Tower nomination, and Dick Cheney became Secretary of Defense which pleased most Republicans enormously. 

The Senate Armed Services Committee should adopt the Tower approach to take up the Hegseth nomination. Today, senators cannot deny the stonewalling going on as they wrestle with a nomination riddled with many unanswered questions. The committee should afford the smooth-talking television personality Hegseth a full and fair opportunity to refute serious allegations and silence his critics. Pithy and evasive answers must be challenged.  Most senators, Democrats and Republicans, would like to vote for the nominee.  But before the clerk calls the Hegseth vote each senator should ask if she or he is willing to take a chance on a nominee with thin qualifications who has a reported history of excessive drinking and repeated abusive behavior towards women, the very nominee, who, if confirmed, will make war and peace and national security recommendations to Congress and the President, and manage the largest workforce in the U. S. government. Senators must be able to answer in the affirmative they are confident this nominee will protect all service members from sexual abuse and harassment while also insuring women have the same opportunities for advancement as their male counterparts.  Women make up 18% of the force and some of our services are already not meeting their recruiting goals.  To declare, as this nominee and former junior officer has done, that some fields should not be open to women hardly encourages more women to sign up. 

Today there remains a serious sexual harassment and sexual abuse problem in every branch of our armed services, as well as a persistent drinking problem.  This is no time to confirm an individual to lead our armed forces and Defense Department civilians who may be seriously challenged in managing his drinking and conducting himself appropriately with women in social and professional settings.

Every senator on the committee should ask this nominee if he has now or ever had a serious drinking problem or a problem behaving appropriately with women at work and socially. The nominee’s answer must be clear and consistent with how he has conducted himself in recent years at work, socially, and at home.  Thirty-six years ago Senator John Tower, the former Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, insisted he had no problem with drink or women, but hearings and a record complete with credible witnesses revealed otherwise.

 A few sitting senators such as Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and Chuck Grassley of Iowa recall the ill-advised Tower nomination very well. Senator Grassley may want to share that history with his colleague, the junior senator from Iowa, Joni Ernest, an Army veteran, who sits on Armed Services and cares deeply about women in the ranks.  Soon she may have to vote on the Hegseth nomination. It could well be the most impactful vote Senator Ernst will ever cast.

Aubrey Sarvis is an Army veteran and retired United States Senate counsel and corporate lawyer now living in Chestertown 

 

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.