Epithet not OK, even in a teachable moment
Regarding “Principal’s Use of racial epithet angers” (Bay Area & Business, May 27): My first thought as a white person was why should the principal be pilloried for trying to do the right thing. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that for a Black person, the use of the “N-word” is an epithet unacceptable under any circumstances. Would Principal Carol Fong have used any of our other English four-letter epithets under the same or similar circumstances? Doubtless not.
That said, might it not have been better for the offended parent to have approached Fong directly? She could have explained just how inexcusably offensive that epithet is, even when uttered with the best of intentions, instead of reporting Fong to the school district?
We all still have a lot to learn about racism in this country, and we need to be open to teachable moments from those best in a position to do so, as I am sure Fong would have been.
Michael Wilmar, San Francisco
Burning bridges
Regarding “Pope skips over S.F’s Cordileone for cardinal” (Bay Area & Business, May 30): When Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone told The Chronicle last year that he was “dubious” that Pope Francis allowed President Biden to receive Holy Communion despite Biden’s support of abortion rights, I thought to myself, oh boy, not a good career move. It turns out that I was right.
Elizabeth Manning, Novato
Pesticides are a worry
Regarding “Judge orders stop to pesticide spraying” (Bay Area & Business, June 1): I was dismayed and disappointed to learn that our state may have sprayed harmful pesticides on public and private land in my county, among many others.
Dismayed, because the judge agreed with the plaintiffs that the state’s 2014 environmental impact report used to authorize the spraying program was seriously inadequate. Not only did the report contain assertions regarding the lack of harm, the use of a statewide report to justify spraying in varying local areas with very diverse environmental impacts makes no sense.
Disappointed, because I like to believe that our state government truly supports the health of our planet. Disappointed, because my hope that California can serve as a proving ground for environmentally responsive projects that are models for other states is undercut by the pesticide programs lack of scientific basis.
As a Contra Costa County resident, I thought that the particulates emitted by local refineries were the major environmental concern to our community. I now know that I need to add pesticide spraying to that list.
Illana Weisman, Walnut Creek
Stanford’s savior
Regarding “Was Jane Stanford murdered?” (Insight, May 29): It’s good that two preeminent Stanford University professors, Richard White (“Who Killed Jane Stanford?”) and the late Dr. Robert Cutler (“The Mysterious Death of Jane Stanford”) have finally put to rest the myth that persisted for nearly 100 years that Jane Stanford died of heart failure rather than the reality that she died of strychnine poisoning at the hands of someone who literally got away with her murder.
Stanford was so much more than a murder victim.
While she may have made a few enemies, she had and continues to have far more admirers who appreciate her strategic efforts to build and save Stanford University.
Most likely, she was simply too powerful for her own good.
Jane Stanford is having a moment for all the right reasons, and it is long overdue. It is an indisputable fact that Stanford University simply would not exist today had it not been for the life and heroic sacrifices of Jane Lathrop Stanford.
Catherine Pyke, Larkspur