Question:
Answer:
This recent Facebook comment, I have received from current City of Grants Pass Council Member Victoria Marshall has compiled words I’ve used over the years—terms like equity, gender identity, cisgender, implicit bias, and harm reduction—along with references to my school board service, professional work, and campaign positions. The conclusion seems to be that the use of this language is itself evidence of an ideological agenda.
I find that argument a little absurd.
I’ve spent years working in education, healthcare, community systems, and with state agencies. Of course I know and have used the vocabulary associated with those fields. Oregon law itself uses terms like “gender identity.” Harm reduction describes an entire category of public-health strategies. Equity is a concept discussed throughout education and government. I would hope someone seeking to serve in the Oregon Legislature is informed enough to understand and use the terminology involved in the issues they will be asked to govern.
Using a word isn’t a policy position. Knowing what “harm reduction” means doesn’t mean I support every program described that way. Using the term “gender identity” doesn’t tell you where I draw every policy line involving gender. Discussing racial equity doesn’t mean I believe white people are bad. If you want to know what I actually believe about a policy, ask me about the policy.
There is a broader theme in the criticism that I think is worth addressing. It takes my concern for people who may be marginalized and interprets that concern as hostility toward everyone else. I reject that premise. I don’t believe white, heterosexual, Christian, conservative, or traditional families are a problem, and the suggestion that I’ve sought to “destroy” their culture is so far removed from anything I’ve said or advocated that I would simply ask for the evidence. The recent video clips that have been posted of my time serving on the school board only validate my experience for the job and I appreciate they are being shared.
My approach has always been much more practical. When I served on the Three Rivers School Board, my responsibility was to all students. That included the child from a conservative Christian family and the LGBTQ+ teenager. It included students with disabilities, children experiencing poverty, and families who disagreed with decisions we made. Caring about one doesn’t require caring less about another.
The same principle applies to government more broadly. My professional experience working with public systems hasn’t convinced me that every government program is good; quite the opposite, it has shown me how important accountability is. Government contracts should be scrutinized. Programs should produce measurable results. Spending more money doesn’t mean we’ve accomplished more, and good intentions don’t excuse poor outcomes.
I’m a registered Democrat, and I’ve never hidden that, but the party is not my identity. I believe government has legitimate responsibilities to children, families, public safety, and people who are vulnerable or marginalized. I also believe government can become expensive, bureaucratic, and ineffective. I can support treatment for someone struggling with addiction while believing businesses and neighborhoods deserve safety. I can support efforts to increase housing while demanding evidence that public spending actually produces homes. I can care about an LGBTQ+ student while respecting a Christian parent who has legitimate questions about school policy.
None of that strikes me as particularly ideological. It strikes me as the work of governing.
So I’m happy for people to examine my record, including the words I’ve used. But if we’re going to debate my positions, let’s debate positions I actually hold rather than attempting to construct them from a vocabulary list. Ask me what I believe government should do, what policy I would vote for, or where I draw a line on a difficult issue.
Those are questions worth answering.