Last week President-elect Trump proved his wish to be a “disrupter” by announcing several capricious and extraordinary choices for some of the most important posts in his cabinet. They included Robert F Kennedy Jr. to serve as Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS); Peter Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense; and Matt Gaetz to be Attorney General.

A half a century ago, I served as Executive Assistant to a prominent Republican public servant, Elliot Richardson, who served sequentially in these three cabinet posts. Trump’s choices caused me to recall and reflect on the experience and qualities that Richardson brought to these posts, and the stark contrast they suggest.

Richardson was paragon of the “Greatest Generation” and very much part of the “elite” that it is now popular to disparage. Descendant of a long line of prominent Boston doctors, he attended Harvard and Harvard Law School, where he was elected President of the Law Review. He interrupted law school to join the Army. He went ashore on D Day at Normandy as a medical officer and walked through a minefield to rescue a wounded companion. After law school, he clerked for a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. In the 1950s he was a Senate staff member and then Assistant Secretary in the new Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW, now HHS). He then became United States Attorney for Massachusetts. After brief service as a partner in Boston’s preeminent law firm, he was elected Lt Governor and subsequently Attorney General of Massachusetts. Before becoming Secretary of HEW in 1970, Richardson served for a year as the U.S. Deputy Secretary of State.

To the job of Secretary of HEW, Richardson brought prior experience as the Department’s Assistant Secretary; expertise in public management from his roles in state government as well as the U.S. State Department; wide knowledge of the interaction of HEW’s programs with state social service, education and health agencies; and a family-based respect for HEW’s medical and public health professionals. He embraced a management style that emphasized respect for, and use of career civil servants. And he delighted in wrestling with the legislative and policy challenges surrounding welfare and health care reforms and vexed issues of civil rights.

The only thing that Richardson and RFK Jr have in common is family roots in Massachusetts. Kennedy has no experience with public management, no respect for civil servants or for public health programs. His vigorous embrace of a series anti-scientific conspiracy myths and other wrong-headed personal attributes should disqualify him from cabinet service even if he had relevant public management experience.

As Secretary of Defense, Richardson brought an understanding of foreign and defense policy from service as the number two officer of the State Department; seasoning as a manager of huge public agencies; heroic military service in WWII; and large respect for the Department’s military and civilian staff. Trump’s nominee, Peter Hegseth, a Fox News weekend commentator, is manifestly unqualified to be Secretary of Defense. He has no experience with which to manage a colossal public agency; has already started to wage culture war against military leadership and has engaged in lamentable public behavior. His military service is not in any way a sufficient qualification for the job.

Richardson brought sparkling credentials to the job of Attorney General—law review president, Supreme Court Clerk, United States Attorney and State Attorney General.

And he courageously defied President Nixon rather than execute an order he knew to be unlawful at the time of the “Saturday Night Massacre.” By horrendous contrast, Matt Gaetz, a morally compromised former legislator, has no relevant legal or public administration experience. He promises to be an agent of “retribution” for the new President.

Richardson was an exceptional representative of an exceptional generation. One cannot expect individuals of his quality to proliferate in later generations. But surely, there are more qualified citizens to fill these roles. The United States Senate should muster the will and courage to vote down these ludicrous selections for leadership of three of the nation’s vital departments. If it doesn’t, the Constitutional order will be in jeopardy and Republican Senators will live in infamy.

J.T. Smith served in the CIA, the Department of Health Education and Welfare, the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, the Department of Commerce and the Department of State before becoming a partner in the law firm of  Covington & Burling. He retired to Easton in 2005.

My love for the Eastern Shore started in Chestertown. I used to visit each fall for the Chestertown Wildlife Art Festival and it was one of my favorite weekends of the year. Big groups of migrating Canada geese would hang in the air, as would that first real bite of autumn chill. The magic of Chestertown, like so much of the Eastern Shore, is in its close interplay of vista and village. Just a stone’s throw from my favorite bookstore one can enjoy the rural countryside in full, by paddling Radcliffe Creek, cycling a scenic byway, or photographing combines bringing in the harvest.

At the same time, I was making those trips to Chestertown, around 2007, Eastern Shore Land Conservancy was working with the Town of Chestertown, Kent County, and a professional planning firm, to create the Chestertown Greenbelt Master Plan. The master plan was meant to encompass the future of the Clarke-Hopewell farm, described by Chestertown Mayor David Foster as “our only real opportunity for expansion of Chestertown.” The nearly 500 acre farm, located northeast of Chestertown’s historic downtown, is one of the last remaining sizeable undeveloped tracts within the Chestertown Planning Boundary.

This was before the Great Recession and there were plenty of questions about how development would shape the future of Chestertown and the entire Eastern Shore. So enter the master plan, developed with strong input from the community, to ensure that future development of the Clarke-Hopewell farm would serve as an “organic extension of the historic fabric of the town,” an effort to replicate in Chestertown’s future what had worked so well in its past.

One of the questions that was asked during the inevitable community workshop nearly twenty years ago was: “What defines the character of Chestertown, and should be reflected in this new part of town?” Responses include: “historic…small town feeling…neighborhood feel…walkable…life on a human scale.” Those words do a nice job describing what works about Chestertown. The master plan hews closely to these ideas, providing a flexible and iterative development program designed to “accommodate much of the growth of the town and the county over the next 50-100 years.” The plan includes hamlets and villages, each of which incorporates mixed-use buildings, civic uses, and neighborhood greens. 

In 2015, the Chestertown Greenbelt Master Plan was incorporated formally into the Chestertown comprehensive plan. It was memorialized in a beautiful leather-bound volume that sits on a shelf here at the Eastern Shore Conservation Center. Increasingly, it looks like that is where the master plan will stay.

Instead of human-scale hamlets, what now seems poised to occupy the Clarke-Hopewell farm is a 45-megawatt utility-scale solar array. The array will send power straight to the grid, keeping lights on and computers buzzing in homes and businesses and data centers as far away as Illinois. And all of this has been planned despite the clear and formal opposition of Chestertown and Kent County.

This change came about because the solar developer, a subsidiary of a massive Canadian-based asset management company, petitioned for, and was granted a Certificate of Public Convenience and Need (or a CPCN) from the State of Maryland. What does this mean? Well, in this case, the CPCN serves as a kind of permission slip, signed by state government, allowing the solar company to work around time-tested and well-understood local land use decision making processes. This is referred to as preemption, since local zoning rules, planning commissions, and comprehensive plans are ‘preempted’ by the CPCN, which serves as a kind of blanket approval for land use and site plans that might otherwise be inconsistent with local wishes.  

State preemption of local land use rules is being done in the spirit of addressing the challenge of climate change head on, for which the state has adopted aggressive renewable energy generation goals. But in the rush to site solar power, the pendulum has swung too far. The playing field is too unlevel. Parcels close to our towns and designated growth areas deserve careful attention, responsible land use, and close examination. In Chestertown’s case, the state’s CPCN is plowing through the town’s best laid plans and taking off the table a parcel that was meant to accommodate well-planned growth for the next fifty years or more. Instead of public parks, community orchards, and apartments that young people can afford and easily bike from, instead of tree-café-playground-garden-cottage-barbershop we’ll have panel-panel-panel—more than 140,000 modules.

Solar panels do not need fertile soil. They do not need to have their hair cut and they do not need to bike to class in the morning. There are many other places solar can go. Where else is Chestertown supposed to go? There are not many other spaces the rest of Chestertown can grow into. At least not without contributing to the Eastern Shore’s “auto-oriented suburban sprawl which threatens to erode its rural character.”

In the race to site solar power as quickly as possible, the Eastern Shore looks increasingly attractive. But we must have some balance, some way to say “Here, but not there.” Many of our open acres are best at producing food, and they should remain in agriculture. Other acres, located nearest our towns, are best suited for new neighborhoods. Some spots are well-suited for solar generation. But when we write a new set of rules that only applies to solar, the balance is thrown off in favor of a single land use.

Rather than allowing Chestertown to “grow harmoniously… slowly and methodically as to maximize the efficiency of its land use,” as the Greenbelt Plan so eloquently states, we will allow our land to be “rapidly digested.” The Eastern Shore will lose.

Steve Kline is the president of the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy

The right to vote, and to have that vote counted, is the defining feature of our democratic system. As we all learned four years ago, that sacred right doesn’t mean much to Donald Trump, who made clear his willingness to casually throw out tens of millions of legally cast ballots if he doesn’t like the outcome.

Our congressman, Andy Harris, chairman of the comically misnamed Freedom Caucus, shares Donald Trump’s and J.D. Vance’s disdain for elections and voters. But Harris’ brand of authoritarianism actually goes a step further. He told a Republican Party dinner in Talbot County last Thursday that, given hurricane damage in western North Carolina, the legislature there should consider dispensing with voting altogether and simply assign the state’s 16 electoral votes to Donald Trump.

Congressman Harris has long been an admirer of Hungary’s authoritarian leader, Viktor Orban. But not even Orban (or for that matter, Russia’s Vladimir Putin or Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei) has gone quite so far as to name a winner before the election. Think about that: Many of the world’s worst leaders at least make a show of democracy.  Our “Freedom Caucus” leader stands alone in his open disdain for democratic ideals.

Naturally, when word of what he said leaked out, Harris tried to walk it back. No one has ever accused the good doctor of being a profile in courage. Rather than owning up to his obvious anti-democratic impulses, he now twists himself into knots to claim that his statement was merely “hypothetical” and taken out of context.

Here’s some context for you. In the days before the January 6, 2021 insurrection, Andy Harris was part of a small group of Donald Trump’s cronies who met in the White House to devise a plot to block the peaceful transfer of power and keep Trump in office by overthrowing the results of a free and fair election.

Are Harris’ colleagues having misgivings about promoting him to a high-level position within their ranks? It sure sounds like it. GOP Rep. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina told Politico “it makes no sense whatsoever to prejudice the election outcome,” and that Harris was misinformed about conditions on the ground in North Carolina. “Bless his heart,” McHenry added, as if Harris were some kindly but feeble-minded cousin.

But Andy Harris is neither kindly nor feeble-minded. He is a smart man, a physician with a long history of success in politics. He knows exactly what he is doing when he allies himself with the likes of wannabe dictators like Donald Trump, J.D. Vance, and Viktor Orban.

Fortunately, we on the Eastern Shore have a chance in this election to let Andy Harris know what we think of someone like him – one who calls himself a leader but would casually discard the rights of his fellow citizens.

After all, we still live in a democracy. For now.

By: Heather R. Mizeur, former Maryland State Legislator and 2022 Democratic Nominee for Congress in MD-01. Ms. Mizeur resides in Chestertown and can be reached at [email protected]

A divided nation, fake news, election fraud, a President desiring to suppress the press and to use the military to arrest political opponents – this could be our future, but it has been our past, as it has all happened before in 1861 Maryland.  If history is our teacher, what lessons should be gleaned from that tragic time?

Early in the U.S. Civil War President Lincoln seized significant extra-constitutional powers to support his war efforts. The intent of the Executive was to suppress dissent, political opposition and manipulate Maryland’s democracy to ensure the Legislature of Maryland and its governorship would be dominated by unconditional Unionist who support the policies of the Executive.  To achieve this objective, it was considered necessary to seize extraconstitutional power and to set aside significant provisions of the Constitution that protected both civil liberties and our democracy itself.  “Arbitrary” arrests, where the Executive department could have citizens imprisoned without the process or a basis under the law, became the mechanism to achieve the objectives. Arbitrary arrests and imprisonments were used to eliminate political opposition and dissent, to intimidate potential political candidates, to intimidate voters, manipulate elections, and to suppress and intimidate the press so such violations would not be reported to the rest of the nation and the world. 

The targets of the arrests were labeled the “disloyal” but don’t be fooled into thinking they were only disloyal to our country or to the Constitution, the disloyal during Civil War Maryland meant disloyal to the President and his policies.  The disloyal were subjected to arrests, confiscation of property, having their businesses closed and revocation of licenses they held that were issued by the government.  It is estimated that 14,000 Americans were imprisoned by arbitrary arrests and over 300 newspapers suppressed during that war.  How could a President so easily grasp such power unchecked?  That is the lesson for our time.

The foundation of the Executive grasping such power rested upon four segments; the Executive seizing the power to suspend habeas corpus, the dissemination of misinformation, a military that blindly followed the Executive and a significant public support base that unconditionally supported the Executive but who were also manipulated by the dissemination of misinformation.

Habeas corpus is a citizen’s absolute right to challenge the legality of his detention by the government.  It is founded in old English law and is considered an absolute tenant of basic civil liberty.   With the Executive seizing the power to suspend meant the Executive got to decide how, where and for what the suspension would be used.  The President asserted that since habeas corpus was to prevent the unlawful imprisonment of citizens then the fact that the Constitution allowed its suspension implied that citizens could be imprisoned for reasons other than reasons under the law,  such as for political purposes, while it was suspended. 

The President however needed a power to execute arbitrary arrest and the U.S. military provided that power.  Early on we see the Judicial Branch of our government attempt to check the overreach of Executive power in the Ex-Parte Merryman case ruled by Supreme Court Chief Justice B. Roger Taney.  We think of the Merryman case as an issue over who can suspend habeas corpus, but Justice Taney noted numerous constitutional violations committed by the President not the least of which was the placement of the military over civilian authority and giving the military the power to arrest and try civilians.  The Executive department simply ignored Chief Justice Taney’s ruling which is lesson number one from this history.

The Judiciary branch of government has little actual power to check the power of the Executive since they have no enforcement division for their rulings against the Executive.  The President must voluntarily comply, which Mr. Lincoln chose not to do.  Nor did we find that Congress had much interest in checking the overreach of Presidential powers.  Congress basically supported the President, but we do find that some Congressmen were also subjected to arbitrary arrests with Congressman Henry May from Maryland being the first. 

Mr. Lincoln wrote “public opinion is everything, with it nothing can fail, against it nothing can secede.”   Misinformation was a tenant for the grasping of power and the suspension of liberties.  Misinformation created public support for actions that would normally be considered abhorrent if the truth were told.  In dealing with Maryland, the Executive had to deal with a State Legislature that wanted Maryland to remain neutral and did not want to support the war effort.  More importantly during the summer of 1861 the Maryland Legislature was protesting vigorously the violations of the Constitution against the State and against the civil liberties of its citizens.   After the federal imprisonment of the Baltimore Police Commissioners, the Legislature drafted a lengthy and well documented protest of the Executive’s violations of the Constitution and voted to have 25,000 copies printed to be disseminated directly to the citizens of the nation. 

The control of public opinion was considered critical to Mr. Lincoln to achieve his objectives.  The day after the Legislature approved to send their protest to the American public, Mr. Lincon issued a proclamation that censored the press and a little more than a week later the War Department began issuing press releases asserting that they have uncovered detailed plans on how the Maryland Legislature was cooperating with the Confederate army on an attack against the U.S. Capital and were planning to secede Maryland.  That misinformation campaign became the basis to arrest many members of the Maryland Legislature and to hold them imprisoned to isolate them from communicating with the public.  The copies of the report the Legislature ordered to be disseminated were found and burned by the Union army.  

Simultaneously with the arrest of Maryland’s Legislative members we see the arrest of U.S. Congressman Henry May of Maryland who would have created a vigorous protest in Congress, and we also see the first imprisonments of newspaper editors who would also have protested such violations to the world.  One of the editors arrested was Frank Key Howard, the grandson of Francis Scott Key.  Howard was imprisoned in Fort McHenry on the anniversary of his grandfather’s writing the Star-Spangled banner and the irony of his imprisonment was not lost to him. The imprisonment of the members of the Maryland Legislature who were not supporting the Executive’s war policies created vacancies to be filled in the upcoming State elections that were just weeks away. 

The city of Baltimore held over one third of the voters of Maryland and the elections of that city became the main focus of the federal government’s conspiracy to manipulate the outcome of the Maryland State elections.  The Baltimore Police Commissioners were responsible to run the elections and to ensure they were free and fair, however they had been imprisoned and replaced by a federally appointed Provost Marshal who, along with the military, would now run the elections of Baltimore.   Gen. John Adams Dix and the Provost Marshal publicly proclaimed they were taking control of the elections only to ensure that they would be “free and fair” and to prevent treasonous rebels from returning to Maryland to vote. 

This was just more misinformation to placate the public.  The day after the elections the Baltimore Sun published how early on election day hundreds of democrats were arrested by the federals as they attempted to vote.  Word of the arrests quickly spread throughout the city and the democrats stayed away from the polls in fear of imprisonment.  The misinformation campaign used to support the arrest of the Maryland Legislature and to take control of the Maryland elections worked quite effectively in that the Northern public accepted the arrests and control of the elections as a reasonable and necessary action.  This is lesson number two – the grasping of arbitrary power and the suppression of our democracy will always be surrounded by misinformation to maintain public support for such actions. 

The free press is the watch dog of our liberties but during the Civil War we see a massive suppression of the press.  With the early arrest of certain newspaper editors and the closing of specific papers, we see how most of the remaining papers simply fell into line.  The Baltimore Sun reported the arrests of the Democrats on the morning of election day, but they dared not provide editorial comments criticizing the federal government or the Executive.  The federal manipulation of Maryland elections in 1861 was done deceptively and covertly, however by the 1863 elections the press was for the most part completely muzzled in regard to reporting such matters.  For those elections, Marylanders were given color coded ballots that revealed the political party for which they were voting and had to walk through a gauntlet of armed soldiers to get to the ballot box. Many were threatened and beaten and had their ballots torn from their hands. The press was silent on this massive voter suppression and this event was only recorded by an investigation conducted by the Maryland State Senate the report of which is currently available online at the Maryland Archives for those interested in the dirty details.  Lesson number three – if the Executive suppresses or shuts down one or two news outlets, the others will fall in line and tone down their criticism of the Executive.

The grasping of power needed a force to conduct the arrests and support the Executive’s policies.  During the U.S. Civil War, the U.S. military was the enforcement mechanism to suppress many constitutional provisions of our liberties and democracy.  Would our military today be complicit in the Executive grasping extra-constitutional power and subverting constitutional provisions?  Our military members are our nation’s patriots, but they are human fraught with human defects.  There are always some who certainly would support the Executive unconditionally if placed into senior leadership positions.   The Executive replacing senior military leadership along with the leadership of the FBI with staunch loyalist should be a warning.  Lesson number four from Civil War Maryland – the Executive needs a force loyal to him to support the Executive’s overreaching of power and suppression of liberties.   

Early in the War the North was supporting the Executive’s grasp of power and the setting aside of constitutional provisions in Maryland.  The Northern press claimed “Inter arma silent leges” – in times of war the laws (Constitution) fall silent.  Before their imprisonment the Maryland Legislature attempted to provide a warning to the Northern people who were supporting the President’s suspension of constitutional provisions in Maryland.   The Legislature wrote “and let the people of no other section shut their eyes to the danger, because it seems to be impendent over us only, and not over them. Let them not sympathize with usurpation, because it blows for the present appear aimed only at sections and individuals, whose opinions differ from their own. They know not what a day may bring forth, and they cannot measure the harvest which may spring from a seed time of impunity and absorption and wrong.” 

The Legislature warned of the slippery slope of usurpation by writing “There can be no trust and no safety, for any people, in arbitrary power. It is progressive, untiring, unresting. It never halts or looks backward.”   We find that what began in Maryland quickly spread North until habeas corpus was suspended throughout the entire nation and every State had a military commander overseeing the civilian population.  We see how the authority and oversite to conduct arbitrary arrests quickly degraded from being overseen by the  Executive’s cabinet members and high-level military officers to being delegated to the lowest ranked military officer and local constables for almost any reason they saw fit. 

When the policy of arbitrary arrests spread North, those citizens made an immediate and complete reversal concerning the sanctity of the Constitution. This culminated in New York’s governor, Horatio Seymour, attempting to have Gen. John Adams Dix indicted for conducting arbitrary arrest against New York citizens.  The New Yorkers began to fight for their civil liberties and New York Judges made repeated attempts to issue writs of habeas corpus to the political prisoners kept in Fort Lafayette in New York harbor.  By the time the Northern populace began to awaken however, the genie had been out of the bottle and their efforts were too little and too late and they too were subjected to the same abuses which they had earlier supported when it was only against Marylanders.  This is history lesson number five – many citizens will support the Executive’s grasp of power and the usurpation of the Constitution when it is for an issue which they support.  They naively believed that the usurpation of power will never be used against them personally. The warning of the Maryland Legislature should be headed.  Arbitrary power never rests and as we saw during the Civil War, there can be a rapid and steep slippery slope regarding the suspension of constitutional provisions and civil liberties.  

What I have written is the darker side of our nation’s history and joins other categories such as the uncomfortable side of the history pertaining to Native and African Americans that is not taught in our schools or even talked about.  Unfortunately, not all of our history is about truth, justice and the American way but this truly is the history from which we can learn the most, particularly during these troubling times.  For Maryland the misinformation disseminated that he State Legislature was intent on seceding Maryland has become our defacto State history.  Other important events such as the federal attack ordered against the city of Baltimore in early May 1861 with the authorization to “bombard Maryland’s cities”  if Maryland resisted is not found in any of our history books. This becomes history lesson number six – the victors write and significantly influence our history.  We already see two distinct versions of the January 6th event.  The  upcoming elections will determine which version will dominate.  

The lesson I have learned from researching Maryland Civil War history is also supported by my experience working within the Soviet Union shortly after its collapse and later working with the Cuban migrants who were fleeing the Castro regime.   I have learned that our Constitution is the only thing that separates us from them.  It is the protector of our liberties and our democracy.  It is all too apparent that too many Americans take their liberties and democracy for granted, but in reality such freedoms are fragile. 

Regardless of political or social differences our Constitution is what joins us together as Americans and we should hold it as the most sacred champion of our liberties and democracy.  In times of confusion, crisis or distress there will always be those who will promise to deliver us from the turmoil, but they just need extra power.  It can be tempting to turn a blind eye particularly if you support the objective, but do not be fooled and rest assured that it is very likely that you are being misled.  If “honest Abe” can manipulate the public with misinformation, what politician would not?  The Constitution is for us, not for the politicians, it is what keeps our politicians from becoming another Putin or Kim Jong Un, and rest assured any one of them would grab that power if given the chance.  Do not take our liberties and democracy for granted and understand that if the genie is ever again let out of the bottle, it is likely that we will never again be able to put it back in. 

Paul Callahan is a native of Talbot County, Maryland, a former Marine Corps Officer, and the author of the recently released book When Democracy Fell, The Subjugation of Maryland During the U.S. Civil War.   

 

Eleven years ago, Shore Health Systems (SHS) presented to the Talbot County Council development plans for the new hospital. The Plan required a realignment of Route 662, with a new, relocated section of Route 662 to be constructed first, in order to maintain continuous traffic flow on Route 662 during the hospital construction phase. It was unanimously approved by the 2013 County Council.  Bill 1231 enacted March 26, 2013.

Fast forward to early this year (February/March). SHS, without involving the County Council, approached County Staff (not the elected officials) to push for a temporary closure of a segment of MD Route 662. This closure was to occur before the completion of the new, relocated section of Route 662. The urgency of this request was tied to SHS’s desire to start hospital construction, claiming that the building design had “changed slightly,” necessitating the relocation of a small corner of the hospital over Route 662. This change, according to SHS, made it “urgent” to close the road to begin foundation work.

County Staff, including Public Works, Roads, and the Sheriff’s Department, recognized the significant negative impacts this closure would have. The proposed detours would require redirecting traffic to nearby County roads: Hiner’s Lane, Hailem School Road, Goldsborough Neck Road, and Airport Road, from October 2024 to May 2025 (assuming the construction stayed on schedule). These roads would require upgrades to handle the increased traffic. There were also serious concerns about safety and the negative impact on the farming community and Community Center traffic. Despite the diligence of County Staff in communicating these concerns to SHS, except for a concession to make a financial contribution toward the costs for upgrading the county roads, the hospital was resolute about the closure.

Even though there was a perfect opportunity in May to address the issue while addressing another issue with SHS, the County Council was only substantively brought into the process, as a body, late in the game, with a “work session” with SHS which was not held until July 23. However, this work session felt like a charade. It was clear that its plan was a fait accompli, essentially a done deal.

Now, based on discussions led by the County Manager—conversations that did not substantively involve the County Council, as a body, as they were left out of the process—the Council is being asked to rubber-stamp this “emergency” change of plans. Bill 1577 will come before the Council on July 13 for an amendment and for a public hearing on August 27 as an “emergency” bill. But let’s be clear: an emergency, as defined by Webster’s, is “a sudden, generally unexpected occurrence or set of circumstances demanding immediate action.” SHS has not demonstrated that an emergency exists to justify the closure of Route 662 before the new route is completed. This is not a sudden or unforeseen occurrence. As SHS’s legal counsel admitted, the hospital design was only “changed slightly.” If SHS recognized back in February that the design change required the closure of Route 662 in October, they had ample time to either revise the construction plan and avoid closing the road or begin the construction process for the new road earlier this year.

We all want the new hospital, and I fully support and want to facilitate the timely construction of the new hospital. However, for the sake of the public, there must be a transparent process. I cannot support their request that compromises the health, safety, and welfare of our citizens. The hospital should not have requested the closure of Route 662 before constructing the new section and should have adhered to the original plan as outlined in Bill 1231. Any changes SHS needs to make should be at its own expense to comply with the approved plan. This approach is not only best for the County residents but also respectful of their welfare and safety.

Lynn Mielke serves on the Talbot County Council.

We find ourselves at a crossroads where the principles of fairness and fiscal responsibility stand at odds with the allure of sweeping student loan forgiveness. The Biden administration’s ambitious plan to erase student debt, while undoubtedly appealing to many, raises profound questions about the nature of responsibility and equity in our society.

Let us not forget the values upon which this great nation was built. From its inception, America has championed the virtues of hard work, diligence, and personal responsibility. These are not mere platitudes but the very foundation upon which our society thrives. It is a principle deeply ingrained in Americans that one reaps what they sow, and that success is born out of dedication and perseverance.

Yet, in the clamor for student loan forgiveness, we risk diluting these values. Forgiving student debt on a massive scale sends a troubling message—that fiscal responsibility can be forsaken and that personal choices can be absolved of their consequences. Such a notion runs counter to the very essence of accountability.

Consider the plight of those who pursued alternative paths, eschewing the traditional route of higher education in favor of the trades or military service. These individuals made sacrifices, often foregoing the allure of college campuses and the promise of white-collar careers. They did not seek handouts or expect others to shoulder their burdens. Instead, they embraced the virtues of hard work and self-reliance. It is unjust to expect these individuals to bear the burden of paying off academic loans for those who may have made less prudent decisions when choosing their degree paths.

Also consider the situation of those who worked their way through college and saved diligently to graduate with no student debt or responsibly paid off their loans. These individuals made significant sacrifices, balancing demanding jobs with their academic responsibilities and often forgoing leisure and social activities to manage their finances prudently. They demonstrated immense dedication and discipline, ensuring their education did not become a financial burden. Their efforts reflect a commitment to personal responsibility and financial stewardship, contributing to their personal growth and stability without relying on external financial assistance.

While the pursuit of higher education is unquestionably valuable, it is not the only path to success nor the only avenue deserving of support. A history degree, for example, may serve as an excellent foundation for careers in academia or museum curation. However, it is not necessarily in high demand across the broader spectrum of the 21st-century job market. Unlike fields such as engineering or computer science, there are no “history factories” churning out employment opportunities in abundance. Considering this reality, the question arises: why should taxpayers bear the burden of forgiving loans for degrees with limited economic viability? This question strikes at the heart of the debate surrounding student loan forgiveness.

On one hand, there is a compelling argument to be made for targeting relief towards borrowers who face genuine financial hardship or who have been victims of predatory lending practices. Such individuals may have pursued degrees in good faith, only to find themselves burdened by insurmountable debt in an unforgiving job market.

On the other hand, indiscriminate loan forgiveness risks perpetuating a system in which personal responsibility is sidelined in favor of government intervention. It begs the question of where to draw the line between compassion and fiscal prudence. To indiscriminately forgive student debt without considering the sacrifices of those who chose alternative paths is to perpetuate an injustice. It undermines the contributions of those who have dedicated their lives to serving their country, mastering essential trades, or working and saving their way through college.

In crafting solutions to address the student debt issue, we must ensure that we do not penalize those who have already made significant sacrifices in service to their communities and nation. Instead, we must strive for fairness and equity, recognizing the contributions of all members of society and ensuring that relief efforts are targeted towards those in genuine need while upholding the principles of accountability and responsibility.

Clayton A. Mitchell, Sr. is an attorney who resides in Stevensville.

The new Chesapeake College brand, launched this academic year, highlights our role in preparing our students for “what’s next.” Our students choose their own goals—whether that is transfer to a bachelor’s degree program or entry into a career—but our job is to help them acquire the relevant skills, knowledge and experiences to be successful.

This role is at the heart of what our faculty, staff, and administrators do each day. We love to see our students succeed and move on to what’s next in their lives. These individual successes echo throughout our community on the Eastern Shore, bolstering a vibrant economic cycle that benefits everyone in our service area.

Our efforts yield tangible results in our community. When we empower individuals with the skills they need to succeed, we are not only transforming lives but also strengthening our local economy. A skilled workforce attracts businesses, drives innovation, and fosters economic growth. Chesapeake College is proud to be a catalyst for positive change in our community, creating pathways to prosperity for all.

Our collaborative endeavors with partners in K-12 education, four-year institutions, local businesses, and economic leaders are crucial. This year we hosted nearly 150 of these partners at our Program Advisory Committee mixer—our largest to date. Together, we create curricula that resonate with real-world demands, ensuring both our credit and noncredit programs offer engaging and pertinent learning experiences. This collaboration is vital as we align our educational offerings with the needs of the workforce and the expectations of our community.

The influence of Chesapeake College graduates is unmistakable across various sectors. Once again, our nursing program boasted a 100% pass rate on the National Council of Licensure Examination for Registered Nurses (NCLEX). As a result of partnership with our public schools, local educators are taking classes to become certified teachers, and others are earning a Childcare Development Associate certificate, helping to fill critical gaps for early childhood education. From healthcare to education, construction trades to computer science, our alumni are integral to the local workforce.

We recognize that not every great career requires the traditional college path. Careers in the skilled trades can be lucrative and rewarding for students, developing a broad variety of talents as well as skills in problem-solving, customer service, and communication.

This year, responding to the needs of local employers, Chesapeake expanded our trades offerings and launched a new Advanced Manufacturing Program. We now have students learning the latest AMP skills with hands-on experience using 3D printers, CNC machines, and robotics, preparing them for the high-tech jobs of tomorrow. Additionally, we continue to expand existing offerings in construction, HVAC, welding and marine services.

Our enrollment is up 9.5% this year, continuing the growth we celebrated last year. This increase is a testament to the relevance and appeal of our programs—as well as to the impact of Maryland Blueprint for Education legislation, which expands opportunities for dual-enrolled high school students. It prompts us to consider sustainable strategies for addressing the accompanying challenges, including funding and tuition adjustments, to ensure that our growth remains inclusive.

We continue doing our work as effectively and efficiently as possible, stewarding the critical resources provided by our state, our five support counties, and our students.  As we all know, resources are tight and the State of Maryland faces challenges in funding higher education.  We appreciate the support we receive from all of our funding authorities and will continue to be responsible stewards as we make every effort to serve our students and our regional community to the best of our ability.

As we look to the future, it’s essential to recognize the challenges ahead. Access to education remains a pressing issue, with many individuals facing barriers such as financial constraints, lack of transportation, or childcare responsibilities. Addressing these challenges requires a collective effort from policymakers, community leaders, and educational institutions like Chesapeake College. We must work together to ensure that everyone has equal access to the opportunities afforded by education.

At Chesapeake College, we are dedicated to fostering the skills that will drive the future, preparing our students to face tomorrow’s challenges with confidence and competence. Together, we are setting the stage for a thriving, prosperous future on the Eastern Shore.

As we continue to cultivate optimism through our actions and initiatives, I invite you to share in the vision of a promising future here at Chesapeake College—a treasure of the Eastern Shore, steadfast in its mission to empower individuals and enrich our community.

Dr. Clifford P. Coppersmith is the president of Chesapeake College.

The news that the Arizona Supreme Court has upheld an 1864 law outlawing abortion from the moment of conception (except to save a mother’s life), while also making abortion a felony (punishable by two to five years in prison for anyone who procures or assists with one) sent a shock wave last week through the nation. How could a 160-year-old law make any sense in the twenty-first century? Many have pointed out how vastly conditions have changed since 1864: women have achieved the right to vote; Arizona has become a U.S. state; medical advances have taught us more about women’s reproductive health; technology has enabled the widespread use of birth control. But what has not changed? 

In my first book, Thinking about Women, (published forty years ago), I wrote that in the mid-19th century abortion was becoming an increasingly common phenomenon, especially among White, married, Protestant women. Abortion was big business and becoming increasingly commercialized. One noted woman entrepreneur, Madame Restell, earned an enormous income from her abortion products and spent as much as $60,000 per year on advertising alone. As both the drug industry and medical profession were growing in the second half of the nineteenth century, companies could become very profitable by seizing control of the abortion market. But midwives, the majority of whom were indigenous and Black women, would have to go. The medical profession actively spread propaganda and promoted state laws that restricted the practice of abortion to medical men (and I do mean men). An organization in 1857 called the Physicians Crusade against Abortion urged all states to pass anti-abortion laws. Many did.

As I pointed out in Thinking about Women, these changes were fueled by mid-19th century shifts in the class, racial, and ethnic structure of American life. Physicians were not only incensed by the flagrant commercialization of abortion, but they also feared that the growing rate of abortion among the middle and upper classes would cause immigrants, Black people, and the poor to outbreed White people. According to historian James Mohr, spurred by the growth of Social Darwinism and an increasing nativist movement, the antiabortion crusade appealed to racist fears and portrayed abortion as the work of criminals, backward medical professionals, and immoral social agents. Thus, between 1860 and 1880 and continuing through the first three-quarters of the twentieth century, antiabortion policies included strict criminal laws about abortion and put absolute control of abortion in the hands of the medical profession. 

Until Roe v. Wade in 1973, women seeking abortions and their accomplices were guilty of murder, abortion was defined as a criminal act, and the distribution of abortion information was illegal. Before Roe v. Wade, the death rate from abortion (both legal and illegal) was high—negligible now. Public moralizing that defined abortion in terms of religious beliefs only emerged later and not until about the 1970s. 

I do not for a minute believe that the justices of the Arizona Supreme Court had this history in mind—or, for that matter, that they thought much about who and why women have abortions today. But I do know that, once again, we face the prospect of a new eugenicist movement fueled by widespread fears that White people will soon become a smaller proportion of the U.S. population. Ironically, I also know, based on CDC data, that nationally and in Arizona, women of color are those most likely to have abortions, as are young women of any race or ethnicity. Are current restrictions on abortion a covert way of promoting more white births? 

Generally, we no longer question the value of medical science to inform and manage abortion care. Now the vast majority (75%, according to a Washington Post poll) say decisions about abortion should be left to women and their doctors and I agree. Abortion politics are clearly being partially fought based on religious beliefs, but the Arizona law broadens our perspective to help us understand how the fight for women’s reproductive freedom must be linked to the ongoing fight for racial justice, immigration rights, and the control all women should have over their own bodies. 

Dr. Margaret L. Andersen is the Edward F. and Elizabeth Goodman Rosenberg Professor Emerita of Sociology at the University of Delaware and a resident of Oxford.