Letters: J.D. Vance's views on divorce, same-sex marriage send 'dangerous' message
J.D. Vance's 'ominous' idea of 'stable families'
In the Sept. 5 article, "Vance pushes back on divorce, porn," Republican Senate candidate J.D. Vance tells his campaign audiences he's anti-divorce, even in the case of unhappy or violent marriages, "because if you actually raise kids in stable families, they're much more likely to be prosperous, and I think that's what we all want, is kids to grow up in healthy, happy situations."
More:In Ohio's U.S. Senate race, J.D. Vance declares war on behalf of nuclear family
First, we all know that kids need and deserve to grow up in happy, stable homes. It's Vance’s definition of “stable families” that's ominous.
Vance appears to believe unhappy, violent marriages are preferable to divorce. I have my doubts. Many divorced couples successfully collaborate to give their children love, support and security. Children in unhappy, violent homes surely don’t feel loved, supported and secure in those homes.
Vance also is against same-sex marriage. Given his way, would he disband the many loving, stable families of same-sex couples, and risk losing all that happiness and future prosperity?
More:Ohio Senate candidate J.D. Vance opposes bill to protect gay, interracial marriage rights
I suggest Vance — who, like Trump and other Republicans, is promoting Hungarian authoritarian Viktor Orban — is not truly interested in happy families. I believe he’s peddling a dangerous form of political virtue, identifying whole groups of people as unworthy, and rewarding those who promote the “correct” message and bear children for the homeland.
Do you hear an echo of the Aryan race theories of the 1930s and '40s? Yes, I hear it, too.
Margo Bartlett, Delaware
Share your thoughts:How to submit a letter to the editor for The Columbus Dispatch
Test for city jobs must be objective
Columbus Civil Service Commission President Larry Price's Sept. 7 response, "Best, brightest would get city jobs quicker with changes," to my Aug. 2 column, "Eyebrow-raising' proposed charter changes could chuck objectivity in city hiring," misrepresents the changes being pushed by Mayor Andrew Ginther.
More:Commission president: Changes would fast-track 'best and brightest' for city jobs
First, Price argues that the city’s current civil service testing is limited to measuring “hard skills” while the changes will allow “soft skills” to be taken into account as well. That is false.
Assessing “soft skills” is exactly the purpose of the existing oral assessments that job applicants complete. These exams simulate scenarios involving members of the public and difficult situations with co-workers, requiring applicants to demonstrate their problem-solving abilities.
As I noted in my guest column, these oral exams are currently the only portion of the civil service tests on which new police and fire applicants receive a numerical score that determines their “band,” or order, on the hiring list.
More:Are competitive test scores, cornerstone of Columbus civil service hiring, on the way out?
Currently, “soft skills” are assessed by an independent, impartial panel using standardized criteria — something that, as a diversity, equality and inclusion professional, Price must know is a best practice. Under the proposed reforms, this decision-making authority would instead shift to the mayor’s political appointees.
Second, Price argues that hiring would still be limited to those who “already demonstrated they were the top performers” by passing multiple-choice and written exams. However, this ignores the incredibly low bar for “passage.” Applicants can answer nearly half of the questions wrong and still pass the test — hardly evidence of top performance.
The only way to ensure that the best, rather than most politically connected, people are hired for city jobs is through a rigorous and objective process.
Vladimir Kogan, Columbus
This article originally appeared on The Columbus Dispatch: Letters: JD Vance's views against divorce, same-sex marriage dangerous
