
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SUNDAY, July 30, 1995                   TAG: 9507310009
SECTION: CURRENT                    PAGE: NRV-2   EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

ARROGANT FORUM IGNORES CANDIDATES

My initial reaction to the story "Forum hears only four of 10 candidates" (July 22) was focused upon the arrogance of the group - Montgomery County Mainstream Citizens - in inviting only four of the [10] candidates running for the School Board this fall. As the article stated, the "group made its agenda clear." But perhaps the four candidates made their agenda clear. The four [Wat Hopkins, Jim Klagge, Michael Smith and Bernard Jortner] showed their arrogance by speaking at a forum where the other candidates were not invited. This local "Gang of Four" demonstrated their contempt for the democratic process by participating in cultural elitism.

Does anyone really believe it is a coincidence that one of the four just happens to be a founding member of the group? It is ironic that the group uses the label "mainstream" when there is nothing mainstream about it. The explanation by the group's coordinator as to why only the four were invited is a classic exercise in doublespeak. The message is clear. What the group is really saying is "we know what is best for the lowly citizens of Montgomery County." As a native of Southwest Virginia, I am truly offended by those who come into our area and sound off as to what is best for the "natives."

It is also a misnomer to say that "Teachers have clear school board wants" as implied by the headline on the article in the July 18 Current. The same "Gang of Four" was recommended by the Montgomery County Education Association's Political Action Committee. It takes quite a leap of logic to say that these four represent the "wants" of the teachers in the county. Rather the four are the subjective "choices" of a small group. The four were foregone "choices" and the so-called questionnaire was a facade. If not, why not let the public see the questions and responses.

The so-called "public forum," along with the dubious endorsement, is but another example of the religious apartheid that has crept into our society. By saying that they hope religion would not be an issue, they have, in fact, made religion an issue. They say that they support "the separation of church and state." That phrase has become a "code word" for those who seek to cast aspersions on people of faith. It has become fashionable and acceptable in today's society to discriminate against those who have deeply held religious convictions. It is "politically correct" to discount the faith of the Founding Fathers and the role that the same played in the founding of this country.

Joe Painter

Blacksburg

by CNB