LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
ESAs provide competition
In response to Jonathan Synold‘s letter ("ESAs lack accountability," July 12 Review-Journal), it seems his argument is based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of Education Savings Accounts, which provide parents the freedom to choose how and where their children receive their education. Further, he states that private schools will receive public funds. No public funds will be disseminated to private schools; rather, funds will go to parents who are engaged in the lives of their children and are better equipped to decide the needs of their children, instead of having students steered into a failed, one-size-fits-all public school system.
With reams of research documenting the high achievements of children who have attended private and charter schools, as well as those who are home-schooled, Mr. Synold‘s premise that private schools be rated like their public counterparts is puzzling. Such a rating system, along the lines of the Clark County School District‘s star system, implies that parents are incapable of making a decision without being told by the state where they should send their children. I am certain that parents who utilize ESAs are perfectly capable of doing this research on their own.
I am also certain that, like the emergence of public charters, the school choice movement in Nevada will actually contribute to the improvement of public schools, because only competition can initiate improvement. In the private sector, there is competition. Now that the ESA law has been passed, parents with children in public school can vote with their feet.
JOHN MATSIS
LAS VEGAS
Confederate flag
I am a daughter of the South. I am white and was born and raised in Charlotte, N.C., but my family history goes back many generations in rural South Carolina. I was taught as a child that I was never to sing or play "Battle Hymn of the Republic" because "it was written by a crazy Northern woman about Southerners." I was taught to stand for the playing of "Dixie."
There are Confederate Army veterans in the family graveyard. As the War Between the States (there was nothing "civil" about it, I was told) is an important part of my cultural heritage, I have conflicting feelings about the debate over flying the Confederate flag over the South Carolina State House. That is the flag under which my ancestors fought and died for a cause and a way of life they believed in. They were fighting to preserve that way of life for me.
It‘s easy now to look back and see how wrongheaded the cause was. Any way of life that depended on the oppression of an entire race of human beings could never be sustained; it was bound to collapse under the weight of immorality. However, those soldiers and their families thought they were fighting a righteous battle. But the winners get to tell the tale and decide which side was right. Do the Cherokee see the U.S. flag as a symbol of the oppression and suffering on the Trail of Tears? Do Japanese-Americans see the flag as a symbol of hypocrisy after their ancestors were imprisoned during World War II? Do the descendants of African-American slaves remember that the U.S. flag flew over a country where their oppression was legal during much of this country‘s history?
Should we stop flying the Stars and Stripes in honor of the millions who suffered and died unjustly as our nation grew morally, ever so slowly, over the years?
If taking the Confederate flag down from the South Carolina State House -- as it was decided last week -- would bring an end to racism, hate and ignorance, I would say, for heaven‘s sake, take the thing down. But it won‘t. The battle over the flag has only intensified hatred and divisiveness, and gives the flag more meaning to those who use it as a symbol for their supposed superiority.
During any tragedy, we look around desperately for someone or something to blame. We feel we have to "do something" to prevent such horror from happening again. It‘s too hard to change our gun laws, improve our mental health care system or eliminate the poverty and ignorance that breeds the senseless hate we saw in Charleston, S.C. So we target a flag instead. I think we could do better.
KATHY ESPIN
LAS VEGAS
Offensive cartoon
The Mike Luckovich editorial cartoon on the Supreme Court‘s gay marriage ruling is a splendid example of pure hate. lt‘s not enough that liberal progressives got their way. They have to degrade the greatest generation to display their intense hatred.
Mr. Luckovich provided an example of gross ignorance. But he won‘t live forever, and there will be an accounting for this when his time comes. I‘m surprised that the Review-Journal would print that cartoon.
Brian J. Sandahl
Las Vegas
