Parents share blame for education woes

To the editor:

I never thought I would be writing to support or otherwise agree with university Chancellor Jim Rogers and his rants. However, his broad-brush criticism of parents during his State of the System address has validity in many, many cases.

How many parents:

-- Shut off the TV and ensure that homework is completed and understood?

-- Attend open house nights, PTA meetings, know the teacher's name, would recognize the teacher at the mall, have met with the teacher(s) to discuss their child's progress or lack thereof?

-- Don't understand the homework or can't read well enough to help because they dropped out of school at 15 to have a baby or because English is not spoken or understood in the home?

-- See the school as taxpayer-funded day care and take no interest until it is too late?

I submit these are not rhetorical questions, but are, in fact, problems -- "obstacles" may be a better word -- that teachers deal with on a daily basis.

For, the record, I'm a registered Republican and as conservative as any of the critics, if not more so. Also, I'm neither a teacher nor an employee of the district, nor do I support throwing more money at the problem. This letter is not intended to absolve those teachers, schools and administrators who have failed to do their jobs. Conversely, parents and parental involvement are part of the system, and when it is argued that the system is broken, which I believe to be true, many parents are entitled to their fair share of the blame.

To deny this is being disingenuous, a politically correct word meaning "lie."

William M. Mosley

HENDERSON

Well-paid

To the editor:

Your June 12, 2008, article "UNLV caught in pay plight," reported that there are "an unprecedented number of faculty and administrators currently earning six figures." You then listed about 315 people in that category, whose annual salaries range from $100,081 to $247,954. These figures do not "include money contributed for retirement accounts, health insurance and other fringe benefits (Medicare, unemployment, worker's compensation)."

The story goes on to say that "a full professor at UNLV makes an average of $114,000 a year, about $5,000 more than the average full professors at public doctoral institutions nationwide, according to the American Association of University Professors."

Based on those numbers, there are 960 full-time professors who make a total of $4.8 million more than what would be considered average compensation.

Do the UNLV students protesting proposed spending cuts have this information?

Alice Fessenden

HENDERSON

A few catcalls

To the editor:

I was appalled by the absurdity of Sherman Frederick's Sunday column, "The ugly side of the inauguration."

It was silly enough to insist that President Obama interrupt his historic speech, a rare hopeful and optimistic moment that was being witnessed by a gloomy world, to address a handful of disrespectful attendees who booed the outgoing president. Did Mr. Obama really "condone mob intolerance" by sticking to his speech? Would President Bush really have even wanted Mr. Obama to admonish those who booed him?

But what really annoyed me about Mr. Frederick's column was his supposition that there exists a "growing faction of the American left" that justifies acts of terrorism "as understandable and acts of legitimate political expression." Certainly, America has its fringe believers of all persuasions, but they're hardly "factions." Besides, the greatest acts of domestic terrorism have come from the right. Would Mr. Frederick think it fair to compare Timothy McVeigh with those who supported President Bush, or with the Mormons who supported California's anti-gay marriage proposition?

Mr. Frederick and I both agree with the heart of President Obama's message. We must unite to face our great economic, environmental and security challenges. All of these challenges are inextricably linked, and they've all gotten tougher to surmount over the past eight year. But when we're spending half a trillion dollars a year on foreign oil, we shouldn't be distracted by the disrespectful catcalls of a few people on the National Mall.

Eric Meyerson

SAN FRANCISCO

Stone throwers

To the editor:

Ah, yes. How quickly they forget. Case in point, Sherman Frederick's Sunday column, "The ugly side of the inauguration."

The Review-Journal publisher is correct in stating that childish behavior is inappropriate and never helps to support one's point of view. We all know that the "one-digit salute" is disrespectful to anyone, particularly for the outgoing leader of the free world. But what he has conveniently forgotten is the previous administration and its supporters' behavior when stating that you were either "with us or with them." It was meant to stifle dissent and cast aspersions on anyone who dared to be critical.

Administration supporters went to great lengths to ensure that anyone who criticized policies, particularly military actions, was painted as un-American and had his patriotism called into question.

So let's be honest. People in glass houses should definitely not throw stones. There has been plenty of bad behavior to go around.

Joel Rector

NORTH LAS VEGAS