Letters – Academic freedom, Opal Lee, Mavs, Stars, Dallas City Hall

Re: “Higher education under fire — Academic freedom is being eroded in Texas universities,” by John McCaa, Sunday Opinion.  

In response to McCaa’s column, let me remind readers that conservative speech on university campuses has been quashed on numerous occasions. Recall that liberal activists have vigorously protested, sometimes violently, when conservatives attempt to execute their free speech rights. Lest we forget, Charlie Kirk was murdered when he was simply exercising his right to freedom of speech on a campus. 

Academic freedom is not “being eroded,” Mr. McCaa, it has already been eroded.  Liberalism has undeniably penetrated, and in some instances, taken over all echelons of university systems. The current move in Texas and other states is to counter one-sided ideological bias on campuses. It is a course-correction response to this decades-long trend. 

According to a national survey from The Chronicle of Higher Education, liberal professors outnumber conservatives 60% to 14%. Other surveys show similar or even larger disparities.  

If academic freedom, diversity of thought and freedom of speech were important and fully supported by these institutions, it would be reflected in staff make-up and an openness to hosting speakers with differing viewpoints. Obviously, there is an underlying reason why neither are welcomed nor tolerated on many campuses.  One doesn’t need a PhD to figure out why. 

B. R. Allen, Far North Dallas 

I read McCaa’s excellent column on academic freedom with great interest. For months, I have been concerned about federal and state governments applying great pressure to censor universities for their outward liberal bias.  

While I agree that bias exists in many great universities and needs to be rebalanced, I don’t think the same governments would have complained about a conservative bias. So, they are not about imposing a more balanced freedom of speech; they want the bias in their favor. 

By the time we go off to college, we should be adult enough to discuss without embarrassment or fear of undue influence any topic ranging from sexuality, religion, cultural beliefs, to politics, among others. In fact, this is one of the services a college education has to offer. 

We need to hear these disparate points of view in an environment where discussion is encouraged. After all, it cannot happen at the Thanksgiving table.  

The objective of education should be to learn how to critically decide what is the right thing to conclude from all the various points of view that we have to deal with in the real world. 

Robert Rathmell, Murphy 

Re: “Opal Lee isn’t giving up on America,” by Sarah Hepola, Sunday Arts & Life column. 

If you want to recognize the value of a major city independent newspaper, then take down the Sunday, June 7, Dallas Morning News and slowly read it.  

McCaa’s defense of uncensored education and Hepola’s recount of Opal Lee’s trauma will do more than most news stories to protect our common humanity.  

How will students appreciate the inspiring fight for civil rights if the racist bombing of Lee’s childhood home, if Gen. Robert E. Lee’s tragic decision to send troops up Cemetery Ridge and if the 600,000 dying over slavery are not presented?  

How will they understand the COVID-19 repeat of AIDS devastation by public health resistance if Randy Shilt’s And the Band Played On is not read? How will they understand denigration of women by witch trials, property/vote denial and false masculinity if gender studies are deleted?  

And how will they distinguish the horrors of the Holocaust from protest over Israeli policy if Elie Wiesel’s Night is buried? 

Golder Wilson, Dallas 

Re: “SMU policy sparks debate – New political climate prompts lean toward campus neutrality,” Sunday news story. 

Sorry, SMU. In matters involving moral judgement and human rights, neutrality is complicit at best and amoral at its worst. This is a time that demands a debate on issues of moral clarity. But instead, you decide to limit free speech and further erode constitutional rights. 

Erol Orer, Dallas 

To the loathsome Dallas Mavericks and my beloved Dallas Stars, thanks for slapping us in the face! You have slammed the door on the 2.25 million fans of Tarrant County not to mention the fans and workers of southern Dallas County.  

This decision is particularly ignorant by the Stars. Just a few short years ago you were begging for fans. Success goes in cycles. As soon as the next downturn, you will see if Plano, Frisco and North Dallas can sustain you. Good luck. 

Russell Simmons, Fort Worth 

The city of Dallas should be ashamed of how casually it is treating the people who own City Hall: the taxpayers. 

Mayor Eric Johnson’s support for leaving Dallas City Hall and selling or redeveloping the site should not be treated as permission to hand public land to private interests. Dallas residents are being told repairs could cost roughly $531 million to $611 million. Fine. Show us the math. Show us the relocation costs. Show us the land value. Show us who benefits. 

And stop insulting residents by pretending Dallas’ economic development failures are about which sports teams call the city home. That is a distraction. The real problem is weak Dallas leadership. We are watching major civic decisions get floated without trust, transparency or public consent. That is how a city with global ambition becomes a laughingstock. 

City Hall is not just office space. It is an I.M. Pei-designed civic landmark. If the city wants to abandon it, sell the land and reshape downtown, then put it up for a public vote. 

No backroom deals. No developer-friendly spin. No treating Dallas citizens like an obstacle. 

Dallas City Hall belongs to Dallas. Let Dallas taxpayers decide. 

Jo Trizila, North Dallas