Schools: Think Small
Your article “Low Performing Schools” (by Tara Servatius, Feb. 2) indicates not much has changed in local education. As I once pointed out in a 1995 letter to the Observer, of the many solutions proposed for easing education problems in CMS, the one that was sure to work — indeed the only one that will work — is small classes, a solution not mentioned in your recent article on ways to improve “low performing” schools. When teachers work with 15 students they work with family. When they work with 30 they work with a mob.
Small classes provide avenues for learning that large classes simply cannot handle. My guess is new and old teachers alike will gladly volunteer for classrooms marked by smallness and family togetherness rather than classrooms marked by mob mentalities. By this means, “low” schools become “high” schools and students learn and teachers once again smile. Educational solutions not marked by small thinking are, in the end, very costly to society.
— Joseph Fail, Jr., Charlotte
What’s Bill Got to Do With It?
I have always enjoyed your publication, however I would like to know how former President Bill Clinton has anything to do with the actual story that has been printed inside (“Cyberslackers Beware” by David Stonehouse, Feb. 16). I skimmed the story to learn that yes there is no mention of Bill Clinton and/or his cyberslacking — particularly in regard to Monica Lewinsky — a series of events that took place nearly 10 years ago now. Come on, you could not have come up with something more recent and actually relevant to the article? Extremely poor choice for a cover page!
I have a number of friends in the music industry in Charlotte and I read Creative Loafing each week to see when and where they are playing, however I think it may be time to find another resource.
— Dawn Carpenter, Charlotte
Clones on the Street
How come you feature the same human faces with different names every week for those polled for “Word on the Street”? In this week’s CL, for example, Leo Toms (that is, if the person pictured really is Leo Toms) must feel unusual knowing that there are many others out there who look exactly like him.
— Stephen V. Gilmore, Charlotte
Editor’s Reply: Once more, and hopefully once and for all, Word On The Street is smart-alecky satire; that is, it’s fictional. Using the same photos every week is part of the joke. For reference, see theonion.com’s What Do You Think feature.
Freedom to Shut Up
I was struck by Dr. James Mullen’s letter to the editor (“Freedom for All¨” Feb. 16) criticizing Timothy C. Davis’ comment about fur wearers (“Freezing for Art,” Feb. 2). Obviously the good doctor took offense that someone would take offense at the needless killing of animals.
What struck me in particular was the reasoning that he used to claim that Davis had no right to say anything on the matter. While on the subject of immorality, James immediately asked if Tim also found fault with 1) Jews, 2) African Americans, and 3) gays and lesbians (notice he left out Christians, the KKK, and those who wage war under false pretenses). My question is: Why does Mullen associate those of categories 1-3 as immoral-doers? Davis was talking about people’s actions (wearing fur) in relation to immorality. Mullen suddenly begins talking about particular creeds and religions (while omitting others) and their respective immoralities. Are your Jewish, Muslim and African American patients aware of your feelings toward them?
The more humorous comment came at the end of the letter when Mullen said, “keep your bigotry to yourself next time and realize that freedom means freedom for everyone.” Now that’s funny! An educated man who in one breath demands that someone shut up in the name of freedom. Food for thought, “doctor”: Because we have the right to do something in this country doesn’t mean it’s morally justifiable. I have the right to stand on the edge of your practice’s property and hand out a copy of your letter to every African American patient of yours. Does that mean it’s morally acceptable? Oh wait, bad example.
— Brice Payne, Fort Mill, SC
Who’s the Victim?
Who exactly is James Mullen defending? Did he actually compare wealthy fur-wearers to oppressed minorities? Does he genuinely put mink-clad millionaires in the same class as slaves and holocaust victims? Is he aware of how insulting it is to these groups he’s pretending to sympathize with to use the word “bigotry” in saying, “Rise up, insensitive rich people! We shall NOT be moved!”? To act as though Tim Davis has trampled on someone’s rights by making a joke is strange enough, but for Mullen to become so outraged that he’s tossing around words like “scapegoat” and “stereotype” is absurd to the point of being offensive. I think most rational people would agree that if there’s a victim in this scenario, it’s the dead thing Jim’s wearing.
— Michael McDonald, Huntersville
This article appears in Feb 23 – Mar 1, 2005.
