Sometimes the simplest of measures makes a big difference. Just call them peace officers instead of police officers. I’ve put off writing this thought as, at first glance, it seemed too simplistic, too naïve or maybe even too hopeful to gain any acceptance. So, as that kind of reasoning goes, what’s the point?
Well, the point is that just maybe it will work — and with little or no damage. In fact, in some parts of the country, we do just that.
To my ear there is a vast difference between the concept of police officer and peace officer. The former seems so harsh, so aggressive, so angular and, quite frankly, lacking key aspects of real humanitarian concerns. The police officer is there to divide, to stop, to find fault in the situation. He is there to restrain, rather than to relieve tension. Shades of gray tend to disappear against this kind of presence; nuance is an afterthought.
The term peace officer, on the contrary, tends to be cohesive in nature, where resolution of physical conflict is the primary objective.
The verb “to mend” comes to mind, where one takes into account the context of the past, the present situation and, just as important, what may be infused for a lasting resolution.
If police presence is required to preserve the peace, it would seem only natural that the title should reflect that mission.
It’s just that words carry incredible baggage, especially in today’s polarized environment. Maybe, like Facebook, a name change is in order.
I would also argue that the position of peace officer would attract a different type of character to the job. Not that there are not good and effective people on the force today. But, generally speaking, I believe more people would come forward who are not as interested in power but who are more concerned with helping people and the human condition
MARTIN SINGER
Hanover
In February 2020, due to public outcry over the proposal for school reconfiguration, School Administrative Unit 6 formed a focus group (of which we were two parent members).
Recently, a forum was held in which the public again expressed its concerns, with more 60 people in attendance. Several of these concerns were left unanswered, the response being that the administration did not yet have the answers.
Evidence indicates that the initial “focus group” was designed to deflect the frustrations of the community to a plan that was not evidence-based or well thought out before its proposal.
The administration asked the focus group to do this planning and research, as well as be the public face. At the same time, the administration’s obfuscation lead to the group not having a clear idea of what problems the plan was designed to solve, a timeline of the plan’s evolution, who was involved when, what alternate plans were looked at, and what research supported these suppositions and choices leading to this being the chosen plan.
No thought was given to the effects of removing vertical structuring (learning from older peer role models), the effects of multiple transitions and lack of consistent supports, and how parents could juggle children in up to three different buildings, including how they would be transported.
The administration was asked. None of these had been looked into.
For transparency and appropriate decision-making, the board and community require:
■ A detailed timeline of the creation of the restructuring plan including who was involved at what point.
■ A list of all problems school restructuring was designed to solve, along with a list of what has been done previously to solve these concerns and the outcome of these solutions.
■ A list of what, if any, other plans were considered and why school reconfiguration was the one chosen.
■ All data and information looked at regarding school reconfiguration.
■ Data supporting the concern put forth of lack of equitable school experiences.
■ Details of any other restructuring configurations considered.
MICHELLE BEATON and ZADIAH EISENBERG
Claremont
I totally agree with Forum contributor Vicki Ward’s recent letter regarding media coverage of the U.S. House and Senate (“Media’s false balance is to blame for the fall,” Nov. 2).
After listening to a National Public Radio interview recently, it is clear that the media focus on legislative disagreements among Democrats obscures the fact that few Republicans show any desire to work on legislation to help the majority of the American public. They seem only to be interested in the “Big Lie” and fake issues such as critical race theory being taught in the schools.
Why can’t there be more Republicans like Vermont Gov. Phil Scott, who works without casting blame and in a bipartisan manner to solve problems and meet the needs of the citizens of Vermont?
GENE KADISH
East Thetford