weather icon Clear
RJ App
Vegas News, Alerts, ePaper

LETTERS: Shutting down free speech hardly an honorable undertaking

To the editor:

In response to Gopal Rao’s letter (“Rutgers got it right,” May 14 Review-Journal), the Rutgers University community lost far more than it won when Condoleezza Rice did the classy thing by turning down an invitation to speak at the school’s commencement. As conservative writer Rick Moran noted in the aftermath: “It’s easy to place your hands over your ears and shut out ideas you disagree with. It’s much harder — and far more honorable — to open your mind in order to listen to someone with whom you have little in common.”

Fifty students occupied the Rutgers president’s office, out of a student population of 36,592. This tells me that a very minute number of students made the decision to force a class act such as Ms. Rice into declining the invitation. Can I call this racism since Ms. Rice is a black woman? Of course not — because she is also a conservative. If she were a liberal, she would be welcomed to speak with open arms.

Donald Coughlan of Eagleton Undergraduate Associates also made a good point in the aftermath: “An overwhelming number of students were disappointed in Condoleeza Rice no longer being the commencement speaker after a small minority of the student body and intolerant faculty members at Rutgers University protested loudly over the past month. A university should be a place where free ideas are exchanged and a diversity of opinions are encouraged.”

One more interesting fact in this case: Snookie, of “Jersey Shore” fame, was paid $32,000 to speak at Rutgers. According to Mr. Rao, Rutgers is a first-rate university. If this is a first-rate university, where an intelligent, elegant, classy woman such as Ms. Rice is turned down as a speaker, and a beer-guzzling high school dropout such as Snookie is welcomed to speak, I would think twice about allowing my college-age children to apply to Rutgers.



Appointing judges

To the editor:

I think this year’s primary ballot shows that it’s about time to appoint judges, rather than elect them. Twenty-four total District Court and Family Court judges are running unopposed. And the average voter knows nothing about the candidates.

It’s obvious why no attorney would oppose a seated judge. If that attorney lost, he or she might later have to practice before that judge. The only judges who are challenged seem to be the ones who have ethics violations publicized by the media.

If judges were at least appointed or elected by a panel of attorneys — the people who know about them — we might end up with better candidates.



Benghazi investigation

To the editor:

Since there is no statute of limitations on murder, why are the Democrats so upset about continuing the investigation of Benghazi and the murder of four Americans? The opposition to the new House committee exploring the incident seems to be taking two tracks: first, since there have been earlier investigations, no more are needed; second, since the event happened so long ago (21 months), memories have faded. As former Obama National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said to Fox News’ Bret Baier: “Dude, this was like two years ago.”

I guess Democrats are not fans of the TV show, “Cold Case,” in which authorities solve crimes that have occurred earlier by re-interviewing witnesses who might have some knowledge of the case, and by going over the facts of the situation again and again. Could it be that Democrats do not want these facts to become known? Are they afraid that if the truth does come out, Obama administration officials will pay a price for what they did or did not do?

Regardless, despite the Democrats’ opposition, we must get to the truth in order to bring justice to the four murdered Americans.



We should ban cars, too

To the editor:

Ron Lowe’s letter to the editor states that 30,000 people are killed by guns each year, and the implied solution is to take the guns away (“Guns mainly to blame”, Tuesday Review-Journal). Is it then also correct to say that because 30,000-plus people are killed in car accidents annually, we should ban all cars? Using Mr. Lowe’s logic, that’s what we should be doing.



Shooters are the problem

To the editor:

Kudos to letter writer Andrew P. Fahey for his logic and conclusion about misdirected blame in the tragic killings in Santa Barbara, Calif. (“Preventive help better than gun control,” Tuesday Review-Journal).

However, I don’t agree with Mr. Fahey’s belief that it’s society’s responsibility to identify nut cases. My taxes are already high enough, thank you, and I say no thanks to more profiling.

And regarding Ron Lowe’s letter on the same day, I offer this quote: “When it’s a bomb, it’s about the bomber; when it’s a gun, it’s about the guns.” Where’s the logic in that?



Tackling real problems

To the editor:

With the huge problems facing citizens locally and nationally, such as the national debt, homelessness and unemployment, and the need for more police officers, firefighters and teachers, I’m glad to see that Sen. Harry Reid still has time to address that racial black eye which is that darn Washington Redskins team name. I’m glad our priorities are in order.



Don't miss the big stories. Like us on Facebook.
LETTER: Democrats imposed higher utility costs

Noticeably absent from your Friday article about the increasing utility costs is any mention of the new taxes imposed by our Democratic-controlled government.

LETTER: Here’s how to fix the police

Rep. Steven Horsford is naïve to think that President Joe Biden and a dysfunctional Congress can do anything to stop a tiny number of rogue cops from doing evil things.

LETTER: Time to burst China’s balloon

Kudos to our side for a measured, safe handling of last week’s suspected China spy balloon incident.