When COVID-19 struck California four years ago and people started dying, Gov. Gavin Newsom declared an emergency and assumed unilateral authority over Californians’ economic and social lives.
Over the ensuing months, he repeatedly issued commands to close down businesses, schools and gatherings, only to lift restrictions when they were no longer warranted.
Repeatedly, Newsom declared that his decisions were driven by science, but his underlying criteria were often opaque. The rollercoaster decrees understandably bewildered Californians.
Only a few weeks after ordering shutdowns in 2020, for instance, he eased off, citing economic effects, and then quickly reimposed restrictions when the death count increased. In December 2020, he imposed stay-at-home orders on 11 counties in Southern California, but lifted them a month later.
Unsurprisingly, Republicans attributed the about-face to Newsom’s fear of being ousted by voters in a recall.
“This governor’s decisions have never been based on science,” California Republican Party Chairwoman Jessica Millan Patterson said at the time. “Him re-opening our state is not an attempt to help working Californians, but rather an attempt to counter the recall movement. It’s sad and pathetic.”
However, not all of the criticism came from Republicans. A Los Angeles Times editorial said the reversal “came as a surprise to many – and raised questions about whether the governor was truly ‘following the science,’ as he so often says, or was influenced by growing public discontent with the pandemic restrictions.”
“So he is changing the blueprint rules without any logical reason,” Santa Clara County Executive Jeff Smith, a physician, told Politico after Newsom eased restrictions. “Our futures are in the hands of a governor trying to stop a recall. He has already killed tens of thousands by opening too soon in May. Now he wants to do it again.”
Newsom dismissed the criticism as “just complete, utter nonsense.” Later that year, after defeating the recall, Newsom declared, “Science was on the ballot. Our approach to this pandemic, vaccinations, were on the ballot last night.”
How many of Newsom’s pandemic-related decrees were based on science and how many on self-serving politics will never be known. But it stands as an intriguing example of how science is often invoked in politics.
Another example popped up last week when legislative leaders stalled a billaimed at requiring California schools to use what’s called the “science of reading” to improve students’ reading comprehension.
Results from California’s latest academic achievement tests last year revealed that fewer than half of students met standards in English language skills. California ranks seventh-worst among states in the National Assessment of Educational Progress.
Phonics-based techniques to improve reading are called the “science of reading” because they have been proven to work, but California has been slow to adopt them.
The National Council on Teacher Quality reported in January that California is behind most other states in implementing the science of reading.
Assemblywoman Blanca Rubio, a West Covina Democrat and former teacher, introduced Assembly Bill 2222 to make adoption mandatory. The measure had support from the California PTA, the NAACP and many other education reform groups. However, opposition from the California Teachers Association led Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas to stall the bill without a hearing.
He said he wants the Legislature to “study this problem closely.”
The teachers union is arguably the Capitol’s single most influential interest group. Does its opposition mean California’s children will continue to fall behind in reading scores? Or, will politicians, including Newsom, follow the science and give kids an opportunity to gain the skills they need for all other educational achievements?
Dan Walters is a CalMatters columnist.
Log in
