Letters To The Editor

HIGHER EDUCATION

Stories a disservice to candidates

On May 11 and 12, two finalists were interviewed for one of the most important and challenging executive-level positions in Spokane - one that impacts a six-county area, manages more than 1,500 full- and part-time employees, and has an $85 million annual operating budget.

Candidates for the position of chief executive officer of Community Colleges of Spokane each spent an entire day discussing their backgrounds, qualifications, managerial styles and ideas for higher education with faculty, staff, administrators, students and community representatives. How disconcerting it was, then, to read the newspaper stories about them in The Spokesman-Review.

The candidates’ fitness for this important position was summarized in the newspaper by the comments of one single faculty member. The instructor posed to both candidates the same philosophical question, and then assigned them a letter grade for their performance a C-minus for one and a D for the other.

The resulting newspaper stories by reporter Grayden Jones were sophomoric and did a tremendous disservice to the two candidates, to the Community Colleges of Spokane and to the CEO Advisory Search Committee, which is carefully evaluating candidates who are evaluating Spokane as well. The candidates may well have assigned The Spokesman-Review the same letter grade for these stories that the search committee has an F.

Surely, an institution of the size and the local impact of the Community Colleges of Spokane warrants better, more balanced news coverage than that. Roberta Greene, chairwoman Community Colleges of Spokane CEO Advisory Search Committee

CCS selection committee fouls up

The headline, “CCS to prolong its search for a new leader,” and the accompanying story clearly demonstrate a lack of understanding by the board in conducting a search.

If 28 formal applicants filed for the president of Community Colleges of Spokane and Dr. Jim Williams advanced through the established procedures of the board, then, the search was completed. The selection committee narrowed the field to four using the board’s criteria. Because “two of four potential finalists withdrew their names before they even interviewed or visited the campus” is not the fault of Williams; it is the fault of the selection committee.

When the selection committee continued the process with two candidates and conducted final interviews as reported in The Spokesman-Review, this search was complete. If a candidate withdraws after a final interview, then the candidate remaining who withstood the scrutiny should be awarded the position.

“There were no longer two viable candidates” is not an option for the board because the goal of the selection committee was to narrow it to one. There is no justification for the unnecessary expenditure of public funds to conduct an expanded search because this selection committee completed its search. The public should be outraged by the conduct of this board. Edward Thomas Jr. Spokane

THE ENVIRONMENT

BNSF bull in environment china shop

Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad wants to build a diesel refueling station, which poses a risk to the aquifer. Burlington claims to be a responsible corporation. However, Burlington’s record on other public and environmental matters does not support their claim.

People should remember the many hundreds of deer, elk, and moose run down by Burlington trains during the last severe winter. Burlington took no steps to mitigate the carnage; their trains were speeding through areas of wildlife concentration.

Burlington did not intend to destroy this precious wildlife, and they don’t intend to pollute the aquifer. However, the public should be skeptical of Burlington’s words. Burlington seems to be more interested in their share price on Wall Street than the public’s interests.

Deeds speak louder than words. Maybe Burlington should commit to an emergency plan to save the wildlife when the next snowy winter comes. Sidney S. Howze Sagle, Idaho

VIOLENCE

No discipline means no safety

With yet another group of shooting victims either deceased or wounded, the hand-wringing and soul searching begins anew. We blame the firearms manufacturers and the associations that represent gun owners, and that blame is misplaced.

Young malcontents in the classrooms around the United States are seldom dealt with effectively because teachers have been stripped of their authority. Emphasis has been directed away from an individual’s responsibility to protecting his “rights.” Gone is the day a misbehaving child can be led by the ear to the principal’s office where the principal reads the riot act to the child.

Litigious parents have pre-empted the early corrective process by intimidating school and law enforcement personnel. One highly effective educator of years past used to say, “Take care of the small problems and the big problems seldom occur.”

There is no substitute for immediate, predictable response to misbehavior. It doesn’t happen anymore, and we are seeing the results. Keith A. Springer Spokane

Lock guns? And spoil the excitement?

Great God in heaven, it’s happened again! How many more children will have to die before someone takes it seriously when another child says, “I want to kill someone”?

How many more times will we have to see and hear the shocking, heartbreaking, community-destroying news that another child has gone into a school and randomly opened fire on his classmates? Why are weapons so readily available to these children?

Is it because gun owners don’t accept the responsibility of safe and proper storage of their guns and rifles, nor do they make sure they are unloaded and the ammunition put in a separate, locked place where children of any age can’t get to it?

Oh, but God forbid we place safety locks on guns, because this infringes on the rights of gun owners! What about the rights of those who are critically wounded or killed because of the availability of weapons to children? Will we eventually become so inured to these shootings that we will just shrug it off as another child venting rage?

If it ever comes to that, why not just give every child the right to bear arms, and to use them at their discretion, wherever and whenever they feel the urge?

If this sounds like a crazy idea, just think how crazy it will be the next time a child gets the notion to get even with classmates or teachers and blows them away. Now, that’s crazy! Oh, but we must never put locks on guns. Betty Randall Moses Lake

Don’t discount guns’ deterrent value

I think we all agree that the recent school shootings are tragedies and felt by all. I know that I worry about my nieces - in fact, all the children exposed to this threat.

Paul Valanoff (Letters, May 28) facetiously states all children should be armed. Well, that may be going a bit far. Children should only be allowed to use a firearm under strict supervision of an adult. But it may be time to rethink the gun-free zone laws of schools.

The kids doing the shooting don’t care if they break the rules by taking a gun to school if they plan to kill other students with it. One adult carrying a legally concealed weapon could quickly end a future attack and save lives. Even if no adult is armed at the school, the uncertainty that someone may have a gun may be enough to dissuade a potential attacker.

Valanoff also lays some blame at the feet of the NRA. He appears to be totally unaware of the many hunter safety and general firearm training classes run by the NRA. He also appears equally ignorant of the NRA’s Eddie Eagle firearm safety program for grade school kids.

Lastly, available evidence shows that lawful concealed carrying of firearms does reduce violent crime. Check out John Lott’s book, “More Guns, Less Crime.” Paul Alan Claussen Spokane

And now, firefight free-for-alls?

Over the past months we have seen a great deal of nonsense in the Roundtable from apologists for the National Rifle Association. None, however, has approached the standard set by Paul Valanoff (Letters, May 28), who would deal with a bad situation by making it infinitely worse.

Valanoff wants to require the schools to issue a semiautomatic handgun loaded with high-velocity ammunition to every student 12 or older, and teach them to be ready at all times to use it. Imagine what that expense would do to our school budgets!

The real problem is that Valanoff cannot imagine combat. Picture that Oregon school cafeteria when the intruder entered. Half of the students had their backs turned, and most of the others paid no attention to him until the shooting started. Guns are then drawn in haste, and everyone starts shooting, but few have any clear idea of who their target is supposed to be. Soon, the room is full of flying bullets. Instead of two dead, there would have been at least 50. Even we liberals can see that’s putting our children in harm’s way, not ensuring their safety. Edward B. Keeley Spokane

Writers get it self-servingly wrong

Both D.F. Oliveria’s editorial and Jeff Jacoby’s commentary (May 29) are nothing more than shallow pandering to a conservative audience.

Detectors will not ensure a safer environment, any more than they could have stopped the ambush of students at Heath High School in Arkansas. Metal detectors are easily circumvented, with every single window on the ground floor of the school. If teachers and administrators take the mad ramblings of a student saying they are “going to kill people” seriously, wouldn’t that be more cost-effective than installing metal detectors that are easily circumvented?

Finally, the children killing children is tragic but it’s not mass murder. If Oliveria wants to see mass murder, he should hop a plane to Bosnia or Rwanda, and look into a few mass graves.

Moreover, Jacoby’s comparing parochial and public schools is irresponsible. Public schools must take every student who comes to their door - that is the law. It means they take the mentally disturbed, the overly aggressive, students with learning disorders and the socially impaired. Parochial schools can reject all these students. Hence, the comparison falls apart.

Unfortunately, both of these simplistic pieces only serve to further discredit The Spokesman-Review editorial staff in the eyes of the citizens of Spokane. Members of the editorial board, I know you are better than this type of rubbish. Angel M. Fitzpatrick Fairfield, Wash.

Needed: really effective parenting

How do we as parents address another adolescent and reprehensible butchering? Perhaps by humbly convincing the foggy and unaware that the majority of child rearing needs to return to an old-fashioned concept: parenting. Real, honest-to-goodness parenting. Not so-called child care. Big difference.

It doesn’t belong to overworked, overloaded schools or day care. Far worse, it doesn’t belong to the warm and fuzzy “it takes a village” government. Nothing worthwhile is easy. The responsibility belongs primarily to us parents, inexperienced and exhausted as we may be.

Child rearing is a job so fascinatingly complex and yet one that can be rewardingly simple if (best) started at birth. But it can always start!

Parenting for me can be summed up as: spirituality. Unconditional love. Common sense. Respect. Accountability by both parent and child. Time, shared with listening (two big ears, one small mouth). Parameters. Honesty. Consistency. Sweetness. More love - and not the smother love where the world revolves around the child. While growing up, my home was always open to my friends and it became the gathering place. It was only decades later that my mother sweetly said, “I just wanted to know your friends.” OK, Mom! Common sense with innocent multilevel messages.

I’m baffled by Kip’s Kinkel’s educated, caring parents. How could they miss his dark psychotic “hints” of bombs, guns and animal cruelty? A grim lack of common sense?

It surely wasn’t lack of love.

Lord, please guide all of us to do the right thing as parents. Please bring peace to the families and friends of victims throughout our beautiful country. Laurie M. Kriet Spokane

Anything-goes trail leads here

What is happening in our public schools? Murder, rape, violence, teacher abuse the list goes on. Daily, we hear of these atrocities and more that are committed in our public schools.

We are reaping the values introduced in the early ‘60s by a minority of parents encouraged and assisted by the American Civil Liberties Union. Anti-disciplinarians and humanists have had their way. Rules of conduct have been abolished. In their place are endless restrictions on teachers and schools. School prayers are illegal and the Bible can only be used as a literature book. Teachers are afraid to punish for fear of a lawsuit.

We hear and read a lot about “separation of church and state.” Humanist is a religion. If you read their bible, “Humanist Manifesto,” you can see they are making the agenda for our schools.

School problems 40 years ago were: running in the halls, talking out in class, unfinished homework, chewing gum and such. Compare those with what we face in schools today and you see the tremendous deterioration in society.

Parents, we are responsible for the spiritual, physical and mental welfare of our children. The government has proven to be an irresponsible teacher. If you want your children to have strong moral values, fear God, respect authority and honor others, first, you need to be an} example. And you may need to consider a private school, church school or home school, where moral values may still be taught. Jon Byler Bonners Ferry

PEOPLE IN SOCIETY

Many poor people choose sensibly

I applaud the May 27 Your Turn by Scott Cooper of St. Vincent De Paul, for raising the issues of the “poor.” Certainly, he was right in describing the difficult choices made all too frequently by the poor, e.g. between food and rent.

However, in reading Cooper’s commentary, I was left with the impression that it is common for the choices to be less difficult, e.g. between a hot rod and food or cable TV and rent. I have been working with the poor for 17 years at SNAP, providing a wide variety of services for people experiencing financial hardships. A vast majority of those we serve make very responsible choices with their limited resources. However if there is a car breakdown, an uninsured illness, a loss of employment or some other costly crisis, the choices the person must make are indeed between food and shelter vs. car repair or medication.

There are those few who make poor choices, but to focus our attention on them takes our attention away from the legitimate needs of those who are making responsible choices and who need our support. Alice C. Damm Spokane

Withhold smiles? Come on

I was deeply disappointed in staff writer Paul Turner, in the Slice, for suggesting that it may not be a good idea to smile at teenage moms with their babies. Since when is a smile, especially at a mother and child, ever a bad idea? For that matter, what this world probably needs is more smiles, especially around young people.

May I suggest that Turner sit down with his colleague, Beverly Vorpahl, and try to absorb some of her philosophy of life, especially in the area of self-righteousness. Here is a woman who speaks with kindness and courage. Vorpahl’s commentary, “Goodbye church” (May 23) was directed at another “problem” topic, but the message is still the same.

I think we would all be better off if we would stop passing judgment on other people and try harder “for your heart and soul to become more open to accept each of God’s children. Even those you don’t understand for whatever reason.”

And a little smile wouldn’t hurt! Marianne Connelly Spokane