Credibility is main problem wit visiting sc olar

Re: “‘Failure’ of Eastman appointment shines spotlight on Benson Center,” Jan. 24 news story

I empathize with the CU College Republican who said John Eastman made conservatives, like him, ashamed to admit their political affiliations. John Eastman may want to focus on whether his First Amendment rights are being violated but something much more unregulated and fundamental gets missed. When you back claims that an election has been stolen (despite any verifiable evidence and 60 judges who disagree) and blame a far-right insurrection on antifa, you erode your credibility. Crazy, huh? People stop believing you or even wanting to listen to you. I could barely get through Eastman’s quote. Not because I’m unable to consider a conservative argument but because I figure the guy doesn’t deal in facts.

Susan Niedringhaus, Golden

Re: “CU strips John Eastman of public duties,” Jan. 22 news story

It’s important to consider deeper consequences than merely CU-Boulder’s cancellation of Professor Eastman’s courses due to low enrollment and public functions. Given the disastrous denouement of the speeches preceding the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, our flagship university needs to ask why this position of visiting scholar of conservative thought and policy exists. Did the university’s faculty have a say in this position as it should to ensure that it’s not entirely a political act? Who decides as to whom should fill the position? Is CU-Boulder selling its academic legitimacy to provide affirmative action for “conservative thought”? Tamera Minnick, Grand Junction