|
NOT SO COMPLICATED As a former collegiate and professional athlete from Southern California, I was pleased to see the Willamette Week address my perception of a major flaw in our educational system: lack of useful direction; namely from family, but also from teachers, counselors, administrators and coaches ["The Education of Brandon Brooks," WW, March 4, 1998]. Have we not yet learned that the population of Brandon Brookses in this world is too large--great athletes that are merely great athletes? The fact this Brandon Brooks appears to have Kobe Bryant-like talent misses the point. The text from the article makes it clear: Brooks' superior physical ability has precluded his maturity and emotional development. The writer asserts Brooks may be "complicated." James Joyce was complicated; Brooks is troubled. Any adult wishing to take a proactive role in shaping Brooks' future better quickly realize basketball's near irrelevance. Sure, sports (like any special interest in music, literature or science) can serve as an aid to benchmark one's rite of passage, but it cannot be the exclusive force in so many young athletes' lives. Make sure young men and women can function as humans before turning them into icons. The adults and educators surrounding Brooks' life appear content settling with a leap of faith that basketball will drive Brooks' future rather than gangs or prison. This of course begs the question: What's the excuse for adults dealing with the non-athlete? We would better serve our kids by making sure educators like Coach Stilwell hit the front nine at the Bermuda Triangle Links course and are never heard from again. Bill Koury, Northwest Kearney Street
DODGE OR RESIST? The choice of words can make a difference. Your March 18 issue twice identifies Robert Wollheim as a "draft dodger" ["A Man of Conviction," WW, March 18, 1998]. I'd suggest that "draft resister" would be more accurate. For those of us who struggled with matters of conscience in the later 1960s, the two terms described very different sets of actions. To dodge the draft was to bob and weave--to fabricate medical problems, to stay in college purely for a deferment, to pull strings, to drop out of sight. To resist the draft was to take a public and principled stand against the war in Southeast Asia or against war itself, and to accept the legal consequences. Some draft resisters refused to register with the Selective Service System. Others refused induction. A few, such as Daniel and Philip Berrigan, took nonviolent action to disrupt the Selective Service bureaucracy. Thirty years later, we can agree or disagree with the judgments of draft resisters, but we should recognize that they acted within the long tradition of principled civil disobedience. To call them "draft dodgers" demeans that tradition. Carl Abbott, Northeast Klickitat Street
HOMELESS KIDS AREN'T "PROJECTS" In regard to Maureen O'Hagan's article about Portland's homeless youth ["Tough Love or Tough Luck," WW, March 18, 1998], you are right on target about the inadequate shelter and assistance available to street kids. However, can I add my opinion, however lacking in statistics? Try telling your average neighborhood association, "Hey, remember those kids on the street you've been complaining about? We've found a solution--use your tax dollars to build a new shelter, in your neighborhood!" Talk about NIMBY? There would be a few pickets and petitions about that. As a former employee of Portland Development Commission, I have seen city-funded and grant-funded programs fail for lack of community support. If I recall correctly, it was the Buckman neighborhood association that refused to agree with any of the locations for a men's homeless shelter. Local businesses stated they would withdraw if the shelter was built. And the Royal Palm hotel renovation was an "insult" to the local community. Way to go, Portland! As for funding, where does the money come from? Taxes. And we know how much Portlanders love property and sales tax. When citizens understand that WE fund the government, and that we as a city are responsible for the social change, then maybe Portland's kids will get the help they deserve. Let's not point fingers at anyone but ourselves. By the way, Portland citizen--try smiling at the homeless kid you step over to get to your next business meeting. They are human beings, not projects. Tracey Rovira, Northeast Multnomah Street
ONE SIZE DOESN'T FIT ALL All "street youth" are not the same ["Tough Love or Tough Luck," WW, March 18, 1998]. Yet we seem bent on developing some sort of "one size fits all" programming. They range from youth whose totality of life is lived on the streets to youth who come downtown from their homes predominantly on weekends. Some have viable homes and parents. Some do not. To differing degrees most have been victimized or neglected. They are not widgets all stamped by the same die from some homogeneous raw material. These youth rightfully have varying levels of trust in adults and life. I have known youth who could make good use of a simple "carrot and stick" approach. And there have been others grown too wary by their past to engage. Simple operancy, "quid pro quo," can be seen as controlling or manipulative. What brings comfort to one may engender fear in another. When does a gentle push start to feel like a shove? Some can only progress more slowly than others, and some programs' outcomes may look better than others as their populations may differ. The conflict between approaches may be overstated. I was not impressed by the writer citing the case of the boy who was "within inches" of entering drug treatment, only to back out, presumably because he could access another less demanding program. Anyone who works with youth knows that they get very balky and fearful when asked to deal with Drug issues. It is often the hardest behavior to ask them to change. Even with the full weight of court sanctions. That he fled at the last moment is a function of his anxiety "spiking," rising dramatically, the closer he got to a fear-producing stimulus. It is human nature and disappointing. However, you have shown no causal relationship. He could just as easily have bailed out without any other program to go to. Do we know that that would have been better? To ascribe blame or responsibility is ludicrous. Robert B. Bernstein
Youth Investment/Diversion
Coordinator, North Portland Youth and Family Center
BRING ON THE ACID TONGUE It is my contention that the real source of conflict among various theatergoing readers of this publication lies not in the views or opinions of WW's Steffen Silvis, but in those readers who ostensibly misunderstand the role of a critic. Like many good critics, I assume that Mr. Silvis crafts his reviews to challenge artists and audiences to produce and support theater that resists performance techniques better suited for situation comedies, daytime television, and local commercials for used-car companies. Rather than giving a printed "pat on the back" to every event that hits the stage, Mr. Silvis refreshingly uses his valuable column to question, inform, and (yes) even express disdain for theater events that, for such an informed and dynamic community, usually lack aspiration and originality. Surely there is more room for arts of all mediums that step beyond the norm. Mr. Silvis consistently writes about shows that hold this distinction just as consistently as he calls a spade a spade. Unfortunately there are not enough of the former and too many of the latter. The last thing I want from Mr. Silvis' column is a "balanced review" of anything. Leave that kind of journalism for in-flight magazines and Rupert Murdoch. For better or worse, I prefer Mr. Silvis' acid tongue--if for no other reason than that it keeps the Letters section of WW dramatically caustic. I can only hope that this response inspires a continuation of the dialogue ad nauseam. Bryan Markovitz, Southeast Ramona Street |
