Letters to the Editor | July 16, 2023

In trying to come across as fair-minded to both sides of the political divide, columnist Jonathan Zimmerman says that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ anti-woke agenda is a threat to freedom — but so is wokeness itself. This is a false equivalency. The dictionary defines woke as being “alert to racial prejudice and discrimination.” In what universe is being alert to discrimination seen as a threat to freedom? Martin Luther King Jr., who was as woke as woke can be, would be appalled today by the anti-woke efforts of DeSantis in minimizing our racist past by banning books for merely making some feel uncomfortable with facts.

Zimmerman would do well to reread George Orwell’s 1984, which warned of the dangers to freedom by ignoring or hiding parts of history — as DeSantis is doing by minimizing and eliminating from American history textbooks the very history that shows us our own shame. I believe we all should take seriously the warning that many of our Founding Fathers took to heart, which is that eternal vigilance is the price we pay for liberty. I generally agree with Zimmerman’s views, but no, anti-wokeness and wokeness are most definitely not equivalent.

Anthony Ciampoli, Voorhees

. . .

The July 9 Doonesbury cartoon included the definition of woke as “being alert to discrimination and injustice.” Compare that with Jonathan Zimmerman’s July 11 column, where he agrees with the idea that the essential premise of wokeness “is to define all of us by our racial and gender identities.” Cartoonist Gary Trudeau, as he so frequently has over the last half-century, gets it: Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is using a right-wing slur to denigrate much-needed work in diversity, equity, inclusion, justice, and belonging to get votes from poorly informed members of the Republican base. Meanwhile, Zimmerman engages in simplistic bothsidesism to draw parallels between DeSantis’ mean-spirited use of the word woke and efforts to address discrimination and injustice.

Tom Lees, East Norriton, tlees2@aol.com

As a mom, it breaks my heart to see the obstacles my son, Nelson, faces in his education. He’s smart, hardworking, and determined to go to college. But like many other Philadelphia students, he was trapped in the public school he was assigned. Lifeline Scholarships would give kids like mine a chance to thrive. So why are some Pennsylvania lawmakers opposing it? Their opposition is wrong, unjust, and immoral. We can fund schools and give kids opportunities with Lifeline Scholarships.

Rising costs and financial burdens have made saving money for education a massive challenge. My son — and every child — shouldn’t have his future decided by his parent’s finances. Pennsylvania kids need Lifeline Scholarships. Apparently, some lawmakers disagree. I ask them: Why are kids like Nelson not worthy enough for you? Why should his dreams, aspirations, and goals matter less than anyone else’s? Parents like me need answers — and we also need action.

Ana Cintron, Philadelphia

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.