Panel’s report on CU professor Ward Churchill
Re: “Panel on Churchill: Fire or suspend him,” May 17 news story.
Ward Churchill is not the issue. The First Amendment is the issue, and of far greater importance. When we claim to not be persecuting Churchill for his speech, then use his uncomfortable rhetoric as the catalyst for an intensive dissection of his academic work, we are no better than the political pundits who said, “Sure, I support his freedom of speech and his right to express his views, but … .” In other words, they, and we, really don’t support that freedom or that right.
So it appears that Churchill was guilty of scholarly improprieties. How many professors could pass a similarly microscopic examination of their academic life’s work? How many of us are not guilty of something? To punish him for those mistakes at this time would be in effect punishing him for the proximate transgression of exercising his First Amendment rights, rights that will cease to exist for us all if they must only be exercised in comfortable, non-threatening ways.
Harv Teitelbaum, Evergreen
…
Congratulations to the committee investigating research misconduct by Ward Churchill. It looks like they’ve done a thorough, competent and unbiased job. Let’s all thank them for standing up for honesty in scholarly research.
Freedom of speech is constitutionally protected, but academic speech must be bound by the evidence. Else, there exist no such things as facts, and understanding becomes impossible.
Ralph Taylor, Englewood
Federal aid for farmers without water
Re: “Any help for dried-up farmers?” May 12 editorial.
Key elements of The Post’s editorial apply in every community across Colorado. Water resources are more limited than most understand; and scarcity will require serious economic and social tradeoffs. Exercise of historical water rights gives priority to less-than-optimal, even less-than-appropriate uses. Without arguing that any agricultural use is more valuable than any other use – for recreation, industry, in power generation or proposed oil shale mining – it is clear that in Colorado we must begin to come to grips with a concept of “best use.” We need to find ways to harmonize conflicting interests, before what might appear to be a cyclical shortage becomes true mirage.
A host of technologies is available, and a variety of incentives are possible, but only if the water authorities begin to work together. This would be the proper emphasis for state government.
David Anderson, Colorado Springs
…
Re: “Owens goes to well for farmers,” May 11 news story.
I’m sure Gov. Bill Owens thinks he is doing the right thing by stopping farmers from irrigating, so they can get federal emergency funds. But after the fiasco of Hurricane Katrina relief, I don’t think we can depend on that. It seems that food could be a higher priority than watering our lawns and golf courses and injecting oil wells with water for enhanced oil recovery. It also seems like fighting fires would be a priority. It won’t do us any good to golf and drive our SUVs if we don’t have any food to eat.
Scott Stone, Centennial
The danger and glamour of sun tanning
Re: “Epidemic rise in cancers of the skin,” May 15 Scene story.
I was shocked by The Post’s article. I know about the threats of skin cancer, and am always careful to apply sunblock. However, I had no idea that the numbers were so high. The fact that one out of five people are likely to get skin cancer is mind-boggling.
As an eighth-grade student, I see lots of girls in my school comparing their tans after spring and summer breaks. I am always amazed at how many people seem completely unaware of their risk. They seem to think the numbers don’t apply to them, or perhaps they don’t see the numbers. A lot more of my classmates are at risk than they think.
High school newspapers run ads for tanning salons. That should be illegal. These girls may look “healthy” now, but in 10 years, when they are undergoing chemotherapy or radiation to treat their freckled, dry skin, people may think otherwise.
Cailey M.C. Arensman, 13, Glenwood Springs
Push to reinstate trapping of more animals
Re: “Ensnared by the law,” May 14 news story.
It was very sad to read about a group that is trying to reinstate trapping of more animals in Colorado. Too bad these men were born too late to participate in the old days when trapping and hunting animals was necessary for survival. But in 2006, it is ridiculous to waste the lives of our precious wild animals for any reason, especially to sell a skin for 25 cents. Hopefully, the Division of Wildlife will not allow any more species to be trapped.
We should know by now how cruel trapping is and have more respect for the lives of all living creatures. I am sure the coyote skin would look much better on the coyote than it did on the man in The Post’s picture.
S. Balzano, Wheat Ridge
In the name of war
Letter-writer Brian Stuckey (May 16 Open Forum) argues that electronic surveillance is justified since, “In wartime, things are done differently than in a time of peace.” I challenge Stuckey’s argument on two counts.
First, this oft-quoted aphorism has been used repeatedly in the past as an excuse, however thin, for a wide array of human and civil rights violations, ranging from the innocuous to the atrocious. There is certainly no paucity of historical examples. I am certain your readers can think of a few.
Second, the U.S. is not, at least formally, in a state of war. One often hears the argument that declarations of war are an antiquated and obsolete notion, and that we are, de facto, at war with all terrorists everywhere. Yet, de facto war is a perilous proposition, and it is exactly the sort of thing that the framers intended to prevent.
Furthermore, since we are given no criteria for its conclusion, save some vague idea of putting an end to the use of violence against civilians for the purpose of advancing a political agenda, it seems rather that “a time of peace” has become the antiquated and obsolete notion.
Steve Sabean, Denver
Blaming the teachers
Re: “Innovative plan for teachers,” May 15 editorial.
The Post editorial board continues to use old accusations against teachers and teachers unions to explain why schools are not innovative and thus, by implication, doing a poor job. Would it help to boost student achievement by having non-traditional teachers and programs available to public schools? Yes. Would it address the real issues facing public schools? No.
Many students are not coming to school ready or interested in learning. Prescription drugs and illegal drugs are being abused at home. Children come from those homes. When surveyed in P.E. classes about what they had for breakfast, most students reported eating sugar-based food and little else.
A recent study showed that many young people are so used to instant gratification that they have little inclination to persevere when things initially might require delayed gratification before experiencing success (the learning process). In addition, the same study added that many students are coming from such dysfunctional homes that their behavior problems cause a lack of social skills, which seriously interferes with life and learning.
Until The Post frames the education crisis problem correctly, we will keep beating the same old horse (teachers and public schools) without making changes that are required for a strong, learned youth for America.
Albert J. Lemieux, Aurora
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
Phone: 303-820-1331
Fax: 303-820-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202
Letters guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
