Our recent article documenting the stance of school board candidates on parental rights received a lot of social media attention. Some have suggested that we mischaracterized the statements of Bradi Darrah. We stand by what we said.
Join the effort to preserve our community by becoming a monthly donor today!
Our article summarized the responses of different school board candidates to a questionnaire sent out by the Warren County GOP. Candidates were asked about their personal opinion on Iowa SF 496, a bill designed to establish “a parent’s or guardian’s right to make decisions affecting the parent’s or guardian’s child”, particularly in the context of education. Specifically, the legislation was designed to protect children from sexually explicit materials in the classroom.
Some have suggested we took Ms. Darrah’s response out of context. It is true that we did not quote her entire response to a question. This decision was made for the sake of space, not deception. We did not quote any school board candidates in their entirety. This does not mean we quoted them inaccurately. We provided more of Ms. Darrah’s response than any other candidate. We also linked it to the full statements, encouraging people to read it. The remainder of Ms. Darrah’s response did not provide any significant content or clarity on her position.
Not only did we quote Ms. Darrah accurately, we did not say anything that mischaracterized her stated position. First, it is worth noting that Warren’s Voice is clear that we provide both news and commentary. Unlike other sites that claim to be unbiased when they actually have an agenda, Warren’s Voice is very transparent about our political leanings and mission. However, in this particular article we provided almost no commentary, but simply stated the opinions of the school board candidates.
We did make three statements that could be understood as commentary.
We said Ms. Darrah seemed to find the question about SF 496 “perplexing”. This seems a very reasonable interpretation of her statement that the question “gave her pause” and was “tricky”. We also advised voters to not vote for any candidate that refused to commit to parental rights. We did not name a particular candidate as being for or against parental rights. We trusted readers to come to their own conclusions.
When we posted the article on social media, we did add the following caption, “Which school board candidate refused to commit to maintain a parent’s right to protect their children?”. Some interpreted this to be a statement about Ms. Darrah. It is notable that we did not mention Ms. Darrah’s name in the heading. But the fact is that she did refuse to commit to maintaining a parent’s authority in education. Nowhere in her very lengthy response does she explicitly express support for SF 496, parental rights, or protection for children against sexually explicit material. Her response seemed to be politically calculated to say a lot while saying nothing at all.
If our assessment is incorrect and Ms. Darrah would like to express her support for SF 496, parental rights, and the protection of children from sexually explicit material, she’s welcome to clarify at any time. If she would like to submit an editorial detailing her views on parental rights, Warren’s Voice would happily publish it.
Until we get such a clarification, Warren’s Voice stands by what it said. We accurately characterized Ms. Darrah’s stated positions. She has yet to clearly affirm parental rights. And this is something that voters should take into account.
Like this article? Leave a tip!
Leave a Reply