Sign Antics and Name Games Both Dispiriting

Steve Gluck of Agoura Hills writes:

I am disappointed that you are neither disgusted or outraged by [Richard] Sybert’s actions. He both committed a crime and then had the lack of moral integrity to lie about it. I think this type of conduct is all too prevalent today and that if citizens, including those who have a public voice such as yourself, do not speak up, then we have nobody to blame but ourselves for the type of leadership we have.

I, for one, think it’s important to let people like Sybert know that this type of conduct will not be tolerated, even from a Harvard law grad. Harvard must be proud of him today, however, somehow he must have missed the class on ethics.. . .

Gluck later identifies himself as a “lawyer for 20 years, albeit not from Harvard.” If all this hints at an old grudge against the Ivy League, or maybe just the Cambridge, Mass., home of the Crimson, well, all I can say is that Stanford rejected me nearly 25 years ago and the Cardinal has made me see red ever since.

Political crimes and misdemeanors have brought these two esteemed institutions together here today.

One mini-scandal concerns an adult who acted like a juvenile delinquent. This, of course, was Sybert, the Ventura County Assembly candidate who got caught ripping down a rival’s campaign signs at 3 a.m. and lied to a Times reporter before the gotcha evidence was revealed. Having torn down a few campaign signs myself as a 15-year-old political operative, I couldn’t help but laugh at the pathetic image of Sybert engaged in his own dirty tricks.

*

More troubling to me was the political fix at Birmingham High School. Having lost their Braves symbol to the so-called politically correct sensibilities of the Los Angeles School Board, Birmingham students recently saw their selection of Blue Devils vetoed in favor of Patriots. This called to mind how Stanford lost the Indians in the early ‘70s.

Our coverage of the Birmingham student vote included a photo of a ballot on which a student had defiantly scrawled in the name Braves. The ballot belonged to Sirinya Tritipeskul, a sophomore who later e-mailed me with more thoughts:

I have to admit, it has been amusing to see all the media coverage that had been accumulated through the whole Braves fiasco. We’ve gotten coverage in The Times at least four times . . . We’ve also received coverage on local stations such as KNBC, KTLA, and KCOP. While all of the coverage has been flattering to an extent, I would much rather be receiving credit for academic or art accomplishments. For example, if I were a Conquistador [of El Camino Real High], I’d be proud to be associated with their [Academic Decathlon] team . . .

At the very end, as you pointed out in your column, the student vote turned out to be some kind of formality because the Patriots got chosen as our mascot, instead of Breakers or Blue Devils as the majority of the vote had indicated . . .

However, I started at BHS as a Brave . . . and wouldn’t mind graduating as a Brave. It’s what we shout out with so much pride at football and basketball games. . .We shout out the lyrics, “And the Home of the BRAVE!” with pride and courage. Could I possibly see myself shouting out ‘Patriots’ or the “Blue Devils” at a football game? No...

Somehow, this whole fiasco has served to unify the campus, to an extent. . . . It has people talking about ethics, morals, and surely cultural sensitivity--and maybe that’s what is best done at an institution of learning.

Very true. But if it’s any consolation, Birmingham students may feel some spiritual kinship to the Stanford students who in 1972 campaigned for the newly taboo name of Indians to be replaced by Robber Barons, in honor of founder Leland Stanford, the railroad tycoon. Stanford potentates thwarted the students’ will for obvious reasons.

Birmingham’s grown-ups worried the Blue Devils would invite trouble from ardent anti-Satanists. Birmingham students, then, may see themselves as victims of two political crimes.

Meanwhile, back in the “real world,” Sybert admits to only misdemeanor violations--and the Ventura County district attorney has declined to prosecute. Again, I felt no outrage, in part because of my own political crimes. (Incidentally, by school affiliation, I was a Saint when I performed my nefarious deeds. Goodness knows what a Blue Devil might have done.)

Maybe the D.A. made his decision because he’s a pol himself, knows this sort of vandalism is common and Sybert stands to get punished by the voters anyway. A few readers wrote to remind me that Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky was caught removing rival Don Wallace’s campaign signs four years ago, triggering charges and countercharges.

Much as Sybert claimed his rival’s signs were illegally placed, Yaroslavsky claimed he was gathering evidence that his opponent’s signs violated legal standards. Still, Yaroslavsky was a shoo-in and it wasn’t a smart move for someone known for political savvy.

Voters didn’t punish Yaroslavsky for his deeds, but Sybert has already been stung. My second favorite Los Angeles newspaper, the Daily News, rescinded its endorsement of Sybert after the vandalism story broke.

Beyond Schadenfreude, the pleasure one takes from another’s misfortune, I had no strong moral reaction toward Sybert. But it’s still reassuring to know that some voters are capable of outrage.

*

When I reached Steve Gluck by phone, he told me he had voted for Sybert in 1994, when he fell just 1% short in a bitterly fought campaign against veteran Rep. Tony Beilenson. The bile of that campaign was thought to be one reason Beilenson chose not to seek reelection in ‘96, when Sybert was defeated by Brad Sherman and a rebounding Democratic Party.

In his letter, Gluck continued:

If we treat this like it’s just a little prank among kids then we are just sinking further into the cesspool. You might have participated in “dirty tricks” while a teenager, but as you point out, Sybert is 45 and thus far past the stage when one’s brains don’t engage all the time.

One might be forgiven for committing an act of tearing down a sign, but, the act of lying cannot be, especially by a person who is seeking public office. . . for at least the third and hopefully, last time. I feel sure that if this type of act were in any way connected to Bill Clinton this would be a new menu item for Ken Starr. But enough, candidates like Sybert are not needed, now or ever.

Scott Harris’ column appears Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. Readers may write to him at The Times’ Valley Edition, 20000 Prairie St., Chatsworth 91311, or via e-mail at scott.harris@latimes.com Please include a phone number.