I take issue with the muddled logic in the editorial “Tawdry story of Sigcho-Lopez and the charred flag is one of activists struggling to govern” (April 3).
The Tribune Editorial Board says “the defense of what that flag stands for must always include the right to express a dissenting opinion.” And it appropriately says that Ald. Byron Sigcho-Lopez must be prepared to reap what he sows, which it seems he is doing. That all seems fair and appropriate. So why go further and cast shade against the group that held the rally where the flag was burned? Is the group also not entitled to speak freely? Or is the editorial board’s position “free speech for all,” so long as you are a rule-following, nonanarchist … whatever?
Free speech, free assembly and free association are all rights that should be available to the alderman and to the groups that want to exercise them, full stop. Adding conditions, as the editorial board did, undermines this reader’s confidence in the board’s defense of those freedoms.
— Brian White, Chicago
Ald. Sigcho-Lopez deserves support
I disagree with the Tribune Editorial Board’s criticism of Ald. Byron Sigcho-Lopez. I think all of his work has been positive and he deserves full support.
Sigcho-Lopez has been opposing the U.S. government-backed genocide of Palestinians. He has been demanding greater federal funding for the displaced migrants seeking shelter in Chicago. He has been supporting priority development in Chicago of affordable housing and housing for the homeless, not gentrification. He has been supporting rebuilding of the Public Health Department and been active positively in other important ways.
Sigcho-Lopez deserves support for his forthright and outspoken stand for peace and justice, not criticism or censure.
— Neal Resnikoff, Chicago
DEI doesn’t work, evidence shows
Clarence Page is correct. Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott is not a “DEI hire” (“Deriding DEI is the right’s attempt at a polite way to attack civil rights,” April 3). Whoever said so understands neither diversity, equity, and inclusion nor the ballot box. Scott was elected, and he has an opportunity to show leadership by helping those affected by the Francis Scott Key Bridge disaster, which also had nothing to do with DEI.
With respect to Page, however, his description of DEI is simply false. Since he refers to our institution, let the record show that we strongly believe in civil rights laws and seek to defend these provisions at The Heritage Foundation. We stand firmly in favor of civil rights protections and have our research to prove it.
Page says that the three initials “have taken on a life of their own as code” for epithets and “vile” messaging. We agree, and that is one of the reasons we oppose DEI. If diversity, equity and inclusion retained their traditional meanings, we would be in favor. Alas, diversity has come to mean racial quotas, inclusion to mean language codes and equity to mean unequal treatment for members of different races. These are unconstitutional. Don’t blame us if these are “virtues that have become a vice in today’s discourse,” as Page says.
Plus, DEI does not work. The research literature on DEI’s effectiveness at changing attitudes and behavior among students and working professionals finds that DEI trainings do not alter participants’ opinions (as covered by The Washington Post, The New York Times, New York magazine and elsewhere).
The racial preferences in university admissions for which Page advocates are also unconstitutional and drag along a number of other ills. Racial preferences create a mismatch between individuals and institutions, for example. Again, the research is clear on this topic: When students underprepared for competitive colleges are admitted anyway because of their skin color, they fall behind — not because of ability but because of readiness.
No one should face discrimination based on race, sex, ethnicity or country of origin, and we have both stated this in our research and testimony before lawmakers. DEI programs, however, treat people differently based on race.
Page is welcome at our office anytime as we work to make sure character bests skin color in every public policy.
— Mike Gonzalez senior fellow, and Jonathan Butcher, senior fellow, The Heritage Foundation.
What we learn when we listen
I recently learned a valuable life lesson in the middle of a busy intersection. I was spending a few days visiting my daughter’s family in Austin, Texas. While there, I was charged with walking my two young grandsons to school each morning. The crossing guard, a quite gregarious older woman, knew the boys and asked who they had tagging along. We chatted, and although she lived in Austin all her life, she knew Chicago. It turns out that in her father’s youth, he played briefly for the Cubs. The Cubs wanted to sign him permanently, but his Texas-proud mother tore up the contract. No son of hers would want to live in Chicago, Mom explained with much disdain for big city life. We had a good laugh, and I was sure to say hello again the following morning.
How much better, and maybe even happier, the world would be if we just took a moment to get to know someone, even casually? How many times over the years has she held up her sign and stopped traffic and no one knew? Sure, it’s a little thing, but it’s part of who she is, and she’s proud. She made my day, and I thank her for it.
Take a minute to get to know the delivery boy, a grocery clerk, the librarian. Listen to why a Muslim student feels isolated or a Black father worries about his children. Ask the Latino gardener what he wants for his family. We are, supposedly, all in this together. It’s time to start acting like it. Everyone wants their guacamole, but no one wants to pick avocados. Worse, some don’t want those who are willing to do that work either. We can be grossly indifferent to people we neither know nor understand.
A two-minute conversation with someone you might encounter will not change the world. But it may change your perspective just enough that you will be more amenable to having other conversations. Eventually, you may find it easier to be open, to listen and to be, heaven forbid, a little vulnerable.
When we learn about other people, we learn about ourselves. When we get to know the crossing guard, we get to know a little bit more about how we, and they, fit into the grand scheme of life.
Take the time. It’s not just a great investment; it’s a necessary one.
— John F. Roskopf, Wilmette
Reject museum but not stadium?
Why would the Friends of the Park allow the Bears to build a new stadium on the lakefront when it shot down the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art? The stadium would benefit the privileged few when the museum would have benefited all.
— Leonard Klayman, Northbrook
Not that many account holders
In his letter (“Point doesn’t help argument,” March 30), Theodore J. Harvatin comments on State Farm and automobile liability insurance and at the end paraphrases a thought attributed to Mark Twain.
Only one problem: State Farm doesn’t have 94 million policyholders, which would be approximately 28% of this country’s population. I don’t know many elementary school students who have any State Farm products. The company has approximately 94 million policies and accounts held by their customers, many of whom hold more than one policy and/or account..
If State Farm did have 94 million policyholders, I imagine it would be doing better than it did in 2023 when it reported a net loss of $6.3 billion.
— Brian Collins, Orland Park
Submit a letter to the editor, of no more than 400 words, by emailing letters@chicagotribune.com. To review our criteria, click here.
