Letters to the Editor

Trump’s proposed deal with North Korea is ‘appeasement’

This combo of file photos shows an image (L) taken on April 15, 2017 of North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un on a balcony of the Grand People's Study House following a military parade in Pyongyang; and an image (R) taken on July 19, 2017 of US President Donald Trump speaking during the first meeting of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity in Washington, DC.
This combo of file photos shows an image (L) taken on April 15, 2017 of North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un on a balcony of the Grand People's Study House following a military parade in Pyongyang; and an image (R) taken on July 19, 2017 of US President Donald Trump speaking during the first meeting of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity in Washington, DC. AFP/Getty Images

Regarding “Trump cites ‘protections’ if Kim denuclearizes” (May 17): President Trump offered the dictator Kim Jong Un protection if he gives up nuclear weapons. He even promised that the dictator would remain in power, and his country would be very rich.

This is appeasement. We need a national government that opposes, not appeases, all dictatorships. Unfortunately we have never had one, and we probably never will.

Chuck Mann

Greensboro

‘Patriotic actions’

Regarding “Trump suggests NFL players who kneel shouldn't be in US” (May 24): Taking a knee during the national anthem is not a lack of patriotism. It is using free speech to peacefully and effectively point out a major problem in our nation. The horrible disparity between the NFL’s rule censoring players and free speech being used to allow the display of Nazi and Confederate flags should not be lost on anyone.

Only totalitarian fascist dictatorships fine and imprison citizens for pointing out the flaws in government. Taking a knee is actually one of the most patriotic actions I have seen in recent history.

L.F. Eason

Cary

Honors College?

We need more conservative professors; here's a way to do that” (May 27) suggests that UNC-Chapel Hill is “one-sided philosophically” and should have greater numbers of conservative faculty. To remedy this, the establishment of an Honors College is proposed “with the stated purpose of bringing to North Carolina the best, most respected and accomplished scholars in the world who love and defend Western civilization.”

Why designate the new college as the Honors College? Doing so implies that its dean, faculty, and students are superior to those at other colleges at UNC. The implication that one philosophical or political perspective is “better” than another is antithetical to a true spirit of academic inquiry.

Hiring anyone based on political affiliation invites a very slippery slope indeed and has no place in a public academic setting. Under the proposal, the new faculty of the Honors College would face no “fear of having their classes disallowed, changed to include ‘approved’ texts or forced to submit to majority norms.” At not one of the four institutions of higher education where I have taught during my career have I ever encountered these obstacles.

I hope that UNC retains its academic integrity, deflects this attempt to hijack its curriculum and continues to offer a high-quality, global education to all its students.

Anita Willsie Kerr

Raleigh

‘Public purposes’

Plan gives taxpayers’ dollars to pro-life clinic, Christian hunting club” (May 30) reported the state Legislature appropriated tax dollars to a Christian hunting club.

I then read the state Constitution and found Article V contains the following provision: “Sec. 2. State and local taxation. (1) Power of taxation. The power of taxation shall be exercised in a just and equitable manner, for public purposes only, and shall never be surrendered, suspended, or contracted away.”

I fail to see what public purpose a Christian hunting group provides while promoting religion. Tax dollars collected from all citizens should not be allocated to preference one particular or any religion. I hope the Wiccan hunting club asks for the same preference.

Daniel Grasso

Wake Forest

Pass gun law

I was upset to read in “Morey fires off ‘red flag’ gun law, but Moore deflects” (May 23) that the super-majority of Republicans in the state General Assembly sent Marcia Morey’s “red flag” gun law to the rules committee to die.

This practical legislation would give judges the option to temporarily prohibit gun ownership to persons who exhibit “threatening, erratic, or dangerous behavior.” Nine other states have passed this intervention that can prevent suicides and protect the public at large. This protection is currently available for domestic violence victims.

The people need more legislators like Morey who rise above petty politics to work for the good of the people. It is time to encourage our legislators to pass this bill.

Susan Weaver

Durham

  Comments