Re “Black preschoolers more likely to face suspension,” Mar. 22: This article inferred that our teachers and schools are exhibiting racism because of the disproportionate number of black students who are suspended or expelled for behavior issues. This lone statistic was given without providing any additional information regarding the behavior that may have contributed to the dismissals. This is grossly unfair to paint our teachers and schools with such a brush.
A child must learn proper behavior at home, so that he or she can be a positive contributor in the classroom. Classroom behavior is more about family upbringing than about the school policy. It is an unfortunate truth that a disproportionate number minority children are not from a traditional family unit.
— WILLIAM E. WALKER, CENTERVILLE
Pitts’ remedy for child abuse unclear
Re “Voiceless children need someone to speak for them,” Mar. 21: Earth (or should I say real world) to Leonard Pitts Jr., children are not the property of a state or federal government. Neither are the parents. A child is the property of the parents, at least until such time a child reaches adulthood and assumes ownership of themselves. The rules of law apply to all. Meaning parents who fracture skulls, throw kids from moving cars or endanger their kids, or anyone else for that matter, in unlawful ways are subject to arrest, prosecution and punishment.
The agencies cited in Pitts opinion piece owe their existence to the public’s support and financing provided through tax dollars. If these type of agencies lose public support “for any reason”, that’s how the cookie crumbles. Indicting abortion foes (as Pitts puts it) in this matter is every bit as looney as indicting gun manufacturers for any of the myriad of crimes committed by people that involves a gun. In other words, they have nothing to do with it. Parents can surrender a child they can’t care for, or that is unwanted (for whatever reason), to adoption, foster care, etc., at any time. There are no laws against that.
What on earth Pitts purposes as a remedy to all this is not apparent in his column. Based on his past writings it’s better than a good bet that it would involve some further stripping of personal liberty, additional confiscation of individual property (money, via taxation in all its various direct or indirect forms) or some disastrous combination of each. Those of us living in the real world know that anything like that, more often than not, makes matters worse.
Here is something that always works, however. Learn to accept the things that cannot be changed. Learn to work effectively and intelligently on the things that can be changed. — DAVID MURRAY, BUTLER TWP.
SPEAK UPS
Re "First Amendment still means exactly what it says," Apr. 9: Thomas Sowell's recent editorial is what you'd expect from aconservative's viewpoint. When he unwraps his warped pretzel logic equating the wealthy's First Amendment right to purchase democracy, I'd firmly disagree with his comment regarding the ability of the humans mind to rationalize is one of the wonders of the world. More appropriately would be the expression, "If you cannot dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your nonsense."
Republicans are obsessed with government debt, which they themselves expanded during the Bush years, and what it would mean to leave it to our grandchildren, yet they think it's all right to poison our air, water and land and leave a cesspool, a land unfit for man or beast, to our grandchildren. Government debt could be paid off in ten years by simply raising taxes on the rich by 10%. Reversing the damage to the environment would be much harder to accomplish.
Apparently, the Speak Up writer who proclaimed that the Supreme Court is "firmly in the hands of conservatives" is unaware that the Court consists of four conservatives, four liberals and one swing vote. Did it appear to be in the hands of conservatives when the court changed the Obamacare fine to a tax in order to deem it constitutional?
If Republicans don't think working people should be making a minimum of $10 an hour, then doctors shouldn't be making $1 million a year either.
About the Author