Letters to the Editor | Feb. 2, 2024

Regarding Jonathan Zimmerman’s Jan. 31 column, “Is antisemitism ‘rampant’ at our universities?” no group experiencing discrimination and persecution should be made to hold as a standard the level of discrimination and persecution prevailing in society 100 years ago.

Anti-Jewish hate crimes and prejudiced discriminatory beliefs — which lead to discriminatory behaviors including abuse and violent crimes — are at the highest level they have been in 44 years in the United States. That it was worse in the years immediately leading up to and including the Holocaust and the years immediately after and in the first decades of the 20th century is no comfort at all to Jewish Americans and to Americans generally. Nor should it be. Vigilance is necessary in the face of hate, not complacency.

Unfortunately, things can always get worse, as they have historically. They are bad now, and that is bad enough.

Many minority groups have seen a decline in overall prejudices and discrimination against them in the United States from a longitudinal perspective. That is true of African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, and Asian Americans, and it is also true of women. However, all of these groups and individuals sharing their identity continue to experience discrimination and prejudice, and that experience must be acknowledged in the fullness of its harmful consequences and human and civil rights violations. The same is true of anti-Jewish hate and discrimination. Its depth and disturbing consequences must be urgently addressed, despite how distressing it may be to honestly and fully acknowledge its depth and pervasiveness today.

Noam Schimmel, lecturer, international and area studies, University of California, Berkeley

Thank you, Colleen Gibbons-Brown, for your splendidly well-written but heart-wrenching essay on why you are considering leaving teaching. Sadly, the challenges you described are not new. Many years ago, as a student teacher in a neighborhood school near Strawberry Mansion and later as a teacher at a private school for students who had been removed from the Philadelphia public schools, I encountered many of the same issues that are still endemic today: lack of support services, antiquated or nonexistent technology, discipline policies that emphasized exclusion over habilitation. Imagine a system where the students who most benefit from being in school are excluded for the very reasons they need to be in school in the first place. That’s the system Gibbons-Brown works in. I understand her frustration. I hope her op-ed will open the eyes not only of the mayor but of the governor to rethink how we meet the needs of our most vulnerable students and their families.

S. Jay Kuder, Topsham, Maine

Donald Trump expects U.S. Supreme Court members appointed by him to owe him nothing less than absolute loyalty. The assertion by Trump’s lawyer, assuming fealty to The Don(ald) by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, should repel everyone. Thus, threats have surfaced, reflecting his expectation of favorable rulings from the review of the Colorado Supreme Court ruling and other decisions ordering him off the ballot, in conjunction with the wording of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment. The question is whether America has become a Mafia fiefdom, or whether it still exhibits the fundamental characteristics of democracy as we have known it. Most importantly, should the worst be an accepted vision of the future? Or should we reframe the vision as an opportunity? In fact, 2024 presents everyone with an opportunity to clearly embrace the fundamental values that have served as the blueprint for our democracy.

Instead of allowing fear of retribution to guide decisions in 2024, the Supreme Court has an opportunity to embrace its critical role in maintaining a legitimate democracy. To that end, those within Trump’s hold have an extraordinary opportunity to break free of their shackles, make better choices, and rebuild their frayed reputations. The Supreme Court has ample legal authority to enforce the Constitution’s provisions and uphold the Colorado ruling.

The members of the Supreme Court can seize this opportunity to protect a future in which we can live freely and preserve democracy, or condemn us to be under the thumb of a Mafia Don.

Beverly Schwartz, Bryn Mawr

Americans should not have to fight tooth and nail to pay for lifesaving health care. Yet, this is an unfortunate reality for dialysis patients in America. When I began dialysis, I lost my private insurance since I could not work anymore. Relying on Medicare with little family support, I struggled to pay for my required treatment.

Traditionally, private insurance companies cover dialysis for 30 months after starting treatment to ensure patients focus on their health, not their finances. Yet, a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision could allow private insurance to weaken this 30-month coverage. As a dialysis patient and advocate, I have spoken with many patients who could not afford to lose their private insurance when beginning treatment, and that without it, they would fall into debt.

I will always fight to overcome kidney disease and fight for others. Our leaders need to work to make it easier for us to access affordable dialysis treatment. U.S. Rep. Dwight Evans: Please listen to your constituents and fight to pass the Restore Protections for Dialysis Patients Act, which would protect dialysis patients in this 30-month window.

Kyle Matthews, Philadelphia

Why should the pursuit of a minor 17-year-old who escaped from Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia be called a “manhunt”? Why should that minor — who has gone four years without a trial for a crime of which he is accused and cannot, in any legal sense, be guilty — be named in the newspaper? Even his suspected “getaway driver” was released from custody last summer for lack of evidence after having been in custody for a year; the two might never have met if either had gone to trial in a timely manner. Which leads to my last question: Why does The Inquirer launder the legal system’s systematic failure by demonizing the people in its custody?

Terence Washington, Philadelphia

While the fact that Shane Pryor could walk away from arrest is more than troubling, what seems to be lost in the coverage is that Pryor was arrested three years ago, at the age of 14, and is still awaiting trial. Addressing problems with the city’s “beleaguered jail system” is a great idea, but the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.” Let’s fix the jail system, to be sure, but perhaps it’s a better idea to start with fixing a badly broken court system. I don’t know if Pryor is innocent or guilty, but I can’t see how waiting three years (or more?) while he sits in jail supports his right to a speedy trial.

Barry Lurie, Philadelphia

Someone should create a new device called the Remote Control of Life, which would help navigate consumers through the increasingly confusing world of automation. Currently, most calls made to businesses are answered by an automated voice directing the callers through a maze of options programmed to lead them to the needed information. After selecting different options, one is often left wondering what went wrong since the desired response was not among the available options. Out of frustration, I, and probably others like me, have been reduced to yelling and insulting the automated voice for failing to meet our needs. In addition, I have repeated the words customer service multiple times throughout the message, but to no avail. Unfortunately, this situation has spread to the health services. Doctor’s offices frequently use automated messages to respond to incoming calls, and the chances of speaking to a live person decrease regularly. What happened to the good old days when phone calls were answered by a live person who understood the need to clear up confusion? I crave human-to-human phone contact. If you agree with this message, please press 1.

Edie Sherman, Ambler, edie.sherman2@gmail.com

Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 150 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in the Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.