Impact versus Integrity: A Correction

The following is a column I have submitted to the Grand Haven Tribune to correct a very unfortunate typo in the first paragraph of my column published yesterday. 

Yesterday, in my column on the attempts of far-right extremists to take over our school board and force their views upon all the education of all children in the district, there was a tremendously unfortunate typo in the first paragraph. 

I wrote how all this began two years ago with a group called “Grand Haven Conservative Parents” and their attempts to ban book with sexual content, particularly books that contain LGBTQ characters. I wrote how that group then became “Restoring Ottawa,” and then wrote how many of the individuals associated with this campaign are active in a local PAC.

However, in a slip of the keyboard I wrote that this local PAC was “Ottawa Integrity.” Clearly, though, “Ottawa Integrity” is not the PAC formed from these extremist individuals. And throughout the rest of the column, I referred to that PAC by their actual name “Ottawa Impact.” 

As soon as I was alerted to the typo in the first paragraph, I alerted the Tribune who promptly corrected the online version and issued a correction in the next print version. However, there may be a “felix culpa” here. That Latin phrase means “happy fault” and refers to the truth that goodness can flow even from mistakes and sins done wrong. The typo raises the importance of explaining why a distinction between Ottawa Impact and Ottawa Integrity is so very essential. 

Ottawa Impact is a PAC that has already successfully won primaries where their candidates will now run unchallenged to represent several districts on the Ottawa County Commission. Absent challengers in the General Election, those Ottawa Impact commissioners will likely be elected  in November and establish their own majority on the Commission. Presumably, they will proceed to do what they promised in the campaign. They will seek to dismantle the Ottawa County Health Department and to eliminate the Ottawa County Office of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion. They will find any way they can to grind their axes from the restrictions of the pandemic and punish public health officials who were trying to keep us safe. 

This is the same group that is running extremist school board candidates in the Grand Haven Area Public Schools election: Roger Williams, Thomas Hoekstra, and Tommy Van Hill. Not only are these candidates running on a platform to ban books in the name of parental rights (they really are only interested in the rights of parents who agree with them, not other parents who want a free and professionally curated library for our kids), but they have all signed a contract with Ottawa Impact supporting its platform. That platform is based on not only on banning books in library, but is also opposed to LGBTQ content in sex education (erasing the existence of queer and trans kids, something that will only increases their pain and suffering), the rejection of healthcare policies for vaccinations to keep the public safe, and a platform statement that explicitly opposes attempts at racial justice and equity.

This group is so extreme that one of the candidates, Roger Williams, has regularly attended school board meetings and when he is told he has to keep to the same three-minute time limit as everyone else in public comment period, he says the board is racist for insisting upon that reasonable guideline.

And Ottawa Impact is not only active in Grand Haven. They are running candidates in school boards across the county. Right across the bridge in Spring Lake, they are running candidates who are disingenuously hiding their connections with Ottawa Impact, as our communities increasingly realize the danger of this group’s extremist views. Indeed, their fear to confront the public is evident in the refusal of any of their candidates for school board to attend the public forum hosted by the non-partisan League of Women Voters. Ottawa Impact, and candidates aligned with their views, are part of a larger effort nationwide to takeover local government and replace public servants with ideologues who support fascist control based on narrow puritanical and discriminatory beliefs over service to a diverse populace. 

Ottawa Impact is true to its name: they are seeking to punch through the policies and structures that seek to enable the freedom and flourishing of the whole community, insisting everyone else must follow their own views on these questions. Theirs is a platform that would violently disrupt our community.

On the other side of the world from them is Ottawa Integrity. While it is clear that Ottawa Impact only supports far-right candidates who align with Trump’s “America First” worldview, Ottawa Integrity is a non-partisan PAC that “is driven by a desire to protect, promote, and uphold integrity for the people in our community.” Rather than attack the health department and school boards, they have explicitly expressed appreciation for the work they (and so many other publics servants) did, trying to keep us safe in the worst health-crisis we’ve seen in a century. Instead of dismantling government, or running on national partisan issues for local elections, Ottawa Integrity believes that “the primary responsibility of local governments is to assess and meet the needs of the community; through the functional administration of municipal services and infrastructures.”

And, yes, they are non-partisan. When you go to the website of Ottawa Integrity, you can see that they have endorsed both Republican and Democratic candidates who follow the principles of integrity they have outlined. None of these candidates are required to sign a contract with Ottawa Integrity. 

So, I want to express my apology to Ottawa Integrity for anyone who may have been confused by the typo in the first paragraph of last week’s column Ottawa Integrity is striving to create a non-partisan response to far-right extremists like Ottawa Impact. Please, whether you live in Grand Haven or elsewhere, be very attentive to who is running in this year’s election and who supports them. It will take every resident standing up and rejecting this takeover for it to be stopped. It might be too late for this year’s Ottawa County Commissioners, but it’s not too late to protect the kids in our schools. 

The Rev. Dr. Jared C. Cramer, Tribune community columnist, serves as rector of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Grand Haven. Information about his parish can be found at www.sjegh.com. These opinions are those of him alone as a resident of the community and do not necessarily reflect those of his church or congregation. 

Vote for the Interest of All Kids and Against Censorship

Below is my column in this week's edition of the Grand Haven Tribune. 

It’s been around two years since I first wrote in this newspaper, expressing concerns of the efforts of some individuals in our community to ban books, particularly books with LGBTQ content. Originally, that group was “Grand Haven Conservative Parents.” Then it became “Restoring Ottawa.” Now many of the individuals associated with this campaign against our schools are active in the local PAC “Ottawa Impact.”

Ottawa Impact has now released the names of their “vetted” candidates for school board, and you can tell that there is a direct connection between the efforts to ban books in our schools and the candidacies of Roger Williams, Thomas Hoekstra, and Tommy Van Hill. 

Williams states on his campaign site that he began attending board meetings when this effort began bank in 2022 and that, as a board member, a major focus “will be to protect children and defend their innocence, allowing them to enjoy their childhood, free of divisive and obscene materials. He believes children should not be bombarded with adult themed books and subjects, or made to feel like oppressors or oppressed, based on skin color or ideology.” Similarly, on Hoekstra’s website, it says, “Thomas decided to run for school board after viewing pornographic material in the school libraries and attending board meetings where there was disregard for parent comment and school policy.” Finally, Van Hill’s website shares his concern for “recent government overreach into individual freedoms, parental rights, and American values.”

So, let’s clarify a few things right off the bat. There are no pornographic books in our school libraries. Are there books with some sexual content at age-appropriate levels? Yes. That’s not the same as pornography. These parents continue to attend board meetings, reading selections from books without attention to the overall literary quality of the work or how that section of content fits into the larger narrative. It is parents like this who have sought to ban some of the greatest pieces of literature from our school libraries, including: The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger, The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck, Beloved by Toni Morrison, The Lord of the Flies by William Golding, Brave New World  by Aldous Huxley, Go Tell it on the Mountain by James Baldwin, Rabbit, Run by John Updike, and And Are you there God? It’s Me, Margaret by Judy Blume. 

These candidates, and the individuals in our community who are still waging a war to ban books, say that they support parental rights in education. They don’t let anyone question them about what that means, though, and so they refuse to participate in open events like the one recently hosted by the non-partisan League of Women Voters. Regardless, let’s be clear, these candidates do not support the rights of every parent. Instead, they believe all children and teenagers in our school should only have access to literature they deem acceptable. They believe they should be the arbiters of age-appropriate content. 

These are candidates with a solution in search of a problem. Parents already have access to the books their kids check out. There is already a system for determining appropriate content, a professional program at the Library of Congress that uses experts in the field and identifies the proper age of the audience. Our school librarians are then trained to use this system when curating content that is age-appropriate for libraries. Furthermore, if a parent thinks a mistake in categorization has been made, that parent can raise the issue with the librarian who can investigate the book and what library it is most appropriate for. 

It's of note that many of the books they disagree with contain LGBTQ characters or content. However, as I’ve written before, the Journal of Adolescent Health published a study that found that 24% of suicides between the ages of 12 and 14 were completed by LGBTQ kids. Data from the United States Department of Health and Human Services indicates that LGBTQ youth seriously contemplate suicide at almost three times the rate of heterosexual youth. Another study from the National Center for Transgender Equity found that LGBTQ youth are almost five times more likely to have actually attempted suicide. A study published in Pediatrics found that 40% of transgender adults have reported attempting suicide with 92% of those adults attempting before the age of 25.

However, when LGBTQ students have access to literature which accurately reflects their experience, it helps them as they grow and develop a healthy understanding of self. Studies have shown that LGBTQ students who have access to themes related to their identity have higher attendance, GPAs, and a stronger sense of safety in the classroom. Rates of suicidality decrease. 

Furthermore, as children grow up into teenagers and then young adults, it is important that they have access to age-appropriate literature—including literature with sexual content that is appropriate to their ages. Studies have shown that this literature helps kids explore what is going on in their bodies safely. And many of these books help adolescents begin to understand the importance of questions like consent as well as providing an avenue for finding language around trauma or abuse they may have endured. 

Will one parent have different ideas about the content they want their child or teenager to read? Of course! That’s why it is so important to cultivate an open relationship with your child, to ask them questions about what they are reading and what they think about it. Education should be a partnership between parents, students, and educators—not a war where some parents try to force their own narrow views on all children in our schools. 

As author Laurie Halse Anderson, whose young adult books are frequently challenged, argues, “By attacking these books, by attacking the authors, by attacking the subject matter, what they are doing is removing the possibility for conversation. You are laying the groundwork for increasing bullying, disrespect, violence and attacks.”

Grand Haven can do better than this. Grand Haven is better than this. And the only way this small group of parents will succeed in their attempt to take over the education of our children will be if we don’t stand up and tell them no. 

So, I urge you, vote in the election on November 8. You can already even request an absentee ballot if you need to. Vote for GHAPS Board of Education incumbents Carl Treutler, Nichol Stack, and Marc Eickholt, and send a message that Grand Haven does not support book banning, puritanical views on sexuality, the shaming of LGBTQ students, or efforts to stop our children from engaging challenging content about race and history. Let’s keep professionals and librarians in charge of our schools, not far-right extremists. 

The Rev. Dr. Jared C. Cramer, Tribune community columnist, serves as rector of St. John’s Episcopal Church in Grand Haven. Information about his parish can be found at www.sjegh.com. These opinions are those of him alone as a resident of the community and do not necessarily reflect those of his church or congregation.