Letters: Stanford’s need | Lot takeover | Cultural connection | Individual right | Losing big

Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.

Stanford guts writing
program despite need

On Aug. 21, Stanford’s creative writing program dismantled the careers of 23 lecturers, the heart of a program that has helped countless students survive in more ways than one. Stanford insists this is a return to the “original spirit” of the Jones Lectureships, short-term appointments for the prestigious Stegner Fellows. Yet, the decision comes suspiciously after these lecturers fought for and won a long-overdue pay raise last year, calling into question the motivations behind this move.

At a university where mental health is an ongoing crisis, and student suicides have become an unbearable reality, this decision undermines the support systems that allow students to take hold of their own narratives. Writing is not a luxury here — it is survival. Programs like computer science are constantly allowed to evolve; why are creative writing programs, which foster human connection and resilience, being stripped down just when students need them the most?

Ellen Yang
Stanford

Lot takeover is right
move for San Jose

Re: “Court OKs receiver to take over blighted lot” (Page B1, Sept. 17).

I appreciated George Avalos’ article on the much-needed cleanup of a blighted area downtown. As the CEO of the Downtown Association, I fully support the recent court decision to appoint a receiver for the properties at North Fourth and East St. John streets. These lots, plagued by fires and criminal activity, have endangered residents and businesses for too long.

I am grateful for Mayor Matt Mahan’s stance against negligent property owners. Revitalizing downtown is essential for attracting new businesses, supporting the community and enhancing public safety. Cleaning up these blighted areas is a crucial step toward making San Jose a more vibrant and thriving city.

Alexandcer Stettinski
CEO, San Jose Downtown Association
San Jose

Lullabies bring back
a cultural connection

Re: “Music endeavor a labor of love” (Page A1, Sept. 18).

With so much going on, it is hard to see the good that’s being “birthed” in our communities. It warmed my heart as an African American woman and mother to see this article about the Lullaby Project.

In my opinion, it’s a rose out of a concrete story. In the United States, the pregnancy-related mortality rate of Black women is more than three times that of White women, and the infant mortality rate is more than double, so I see this project as a frontline approach to this problem in America.

Creating this unique pathway for mothers to connect to their infants not only creates maternal bonds with the babies, but it weaves a tone straight out of the pages of history. Mothers would sing hymns and African folklore to their babies, and it passed down from generation to generation. Somehow it faded away, and African American mothers were left with Western nursery rhymes. This is bringing back the cultural connection.

Charity Burton
Santa Clara

Framers indeed meant
individual right to arms

Re: “Framers’ meaning clear in Second Amendment” (Page A6, Sept. 18).

Jorg Aadahl maintains that in referring to a “A well regulated Militia…” framers of the Second Amendment didn’t mean for it to apply to the general population. While from a 21st-century perspective that would seem logical, actually the framers did mean it to apply to all able-bodied men:

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials,” said George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution.

“The [Supreme] Court found that the phrase ‘well regulated Militia’ referred not to formally organized state or federal militias, but to the pool of ‘able-bodied men’ who were available for conscription.”

A strong argument can be made that the Second Amendment has outlived its usefulness and should be repealed, but that’s a separate discussion.

David Baldwin
Santa Clara

Trump must lose big
to save Republicans

Re: “Republicans more likely to trust Trump than official results” (Page A3, Sept. 11).

The political ascent of Donald Trump has destroyed traditional Republicanism. Only Trump loyalists are now being served.

Perhaps the best and only way for the GOP to recover is to promptly establish a new, national Conservative Party, a party that embraces traditional conservative values and celebrates American diversity (rather than — like Trump — preaching hate and dividing the country using ethnic, gender and xenophobic stereotypes). If traditional conservatism is to survive, Trump must lose this November’s election. If Trump wins, that opportunity may be lost. Even if Trump loses the electoral vote, he and his supporters will certainly try to seize power (with the Supreme Court’s collusion and more of his bizarre legal initiatives).

The Sidney Powell-Rudy Giuliani playbook is totally discredited now, but Trump will always find more wonky lawyers to deploy.

Jerry Meyer
San Jose