ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, May 1, 1996 TAG: 9605010003
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-6 EDITION: METRO
TYPE: LETTERS
YOUR April 24 editorial, ``Football values,'' urged Virginia Tech to keep its values straight. You used recent, so-called newsworthy incidents involving Tech football players to defend your position.
In one incident, Jim Druckenmiller and George DelRicco were charged respectively with malicious wounding and assault and battery. However, as of this date, neither has been convicted. In the two other cited incidents, both players were found guilty, and they're paying their debts to society.
Using your logic and implications, it appeared you would be against these players being allowed back on the team or being drafted by a National Football League team.
In the Druckenmiller/DelRicco incident, I believe we should wait until all facts are available before drawing a conclusion. In the other incidents, I hope those players have learned their lessons. But I don't believe they should be banned from the team or from a possible future job. Let the punishment fit the crime.
On the values issue: Is the number of incidents significantly out of proportion when compared with the rest of the student body? You didn't cite how many students who are nonathletes were charged with similar or other serious crimes during the same time period. Is it because those incidents weren't newsworthy since an athlete wasn't involved?
And with a student population of almost 25,000 (the population of many towns), is the number of incidents really significant enough to question whether Tech is keeping its values straight? Or are the majority of students - athletes and nonathletes - law-abiding citizens with good values?
I believe the latter is the case, and I think the qualities and values desired of the students by the Tech administration, faculty and staff are exhibited every day.
RICHARD D. CHUISES
ROANOKE
Great Society's programs failed
I SYMPATHIZE with Judge Richard Pattisall's conflict on punishment vs. prevention concerning young Davon Anderson (April 6 article, ``Boy, victim, criminal, man''). There's a lot of political rhetoric regarding tougher punishment in the legislature. However, the rhetoric also came from the voters.
Look at this case in particular. The taxpayer is paying for the two criminals in jail, and will eventually be paying for the two victims who will receive Social Security disability benefits for the rest of their lives. I'm not sure, but the taxpayer may have paid for Anderson's mother's drug rehabilitation in the past, and maybe she used Supplementary Security Income money to purchase more drugs.
It's a vicious cycle that has to stop. The American voter and taxpayer have to draw the line and stop supporting programs that have proved for the past 25 years that they don't work.
If you follow the history of Social Security entitlements, they were enhanced during President Johnson's ``Great Society.'' This society, which he intended to create, should be classified as an oxymoron since its programs have sent generations into the prison population, with more to come.
KATHY ARTHUR
ROANOKE
Budget will get Moore's attention
PROPERTY taxes seem to go up every year. Sure, property values go up, but so does the cost of living. Many Salem residents who live on fixed incomes cannot afford these increases. City Council has the power to reduce taxes by cutting nonessential spending and the tax rate. None of the present council members has done this. Seemingly, they prefer not only to spend and spend, but also to mortgage our future.
John I. Moore, a candidate for Salem City Council, promises to be an advocate for our citizens. He promises to carefully scrutinize the city's budget, making sure every dollar is spent wisely. I believe we need this philosophy on our City Council.
Salem is a good place to live, but it can be better. Join me in voting for Moore on May 7.
CLINTON SLUSHER
SALEM
Police mentality is a threat
SCOTT Allman was no threat to the community. He wasn't a murderer, rapist or bomber.
This mentality of ``I'll get my man at everyone's expense'' has got to stop. When you chase a car at high speed to an intersection, what do you think is going to happen?
PHYLLIS NICHOLSON
ROANOKE
Nelson Harris: a man of principle
I SUPPORT Nelson Harris in his campaign for Roanoke City Council. I've known him for a number of years and find him to be a principled and considerate man. His leadership as School Board chairman typifies these characteristics.
I offer the handling of the Frank Tota matter as evidence of the leadership Harris will give our city. In that matter, he stood up for what was right and never wavered, demanding that Tota work for the money he was to receive. Furthermore, Harris handled the situation with a calm dignity that is often lacking in public debate.
Roanoke will be served well by the qualities he possesses.
ALLEN T. WILSON
ROANOKE
It's appalling to indict the police
YOUR HEADLINE on April 22 was appalling! I cannot believe that you had the nerve to say ``Police chase kills two.''
What would make you lead us to believe that it was the police who were responsible for this tragedy? When the police put on their lights and sirens, it means stop. This person chose not to stop, and ran from the law. Please pay close attention to the word ``chose.''
It's only right that someone stands up for our police departments. Quit blaming them when someone has total lack of respect for not only the police but the public. Put the blame where it belongs, and give the police the respect they deserve.
JAMES RINGER
ROANOKE
A slippery slope of symbol restrictions
I AM BAFFLED by your response (April 15 editorial, ``Honor is good - so is truth'') to my letter to the editor (``Honor the flag's positive symbolism'') that ran the same day. You claim that I'm guilty of ``presumably willful misconstruing'' of your editorial position. How did you come to this conclusion?
In back-to-back sentences you contradict yourself. You say: ``We'd be the first to oppose a `ban' of any flag.'' Then you say: ``Where we do have a problem, as we've said before, is when divisive display becomes a matter of public policy - as when a state government flies the Confederate emblem as an official symbol over a state capitol.''
Since you can't see the conflict, I'll point it out for you. If a state flag has a Confederate emblem on it, and you oppose that emblem and want it removed from the flag, then you are in effect suggesting that the current flag be banned and a new flag be created. Yet you claim that we shouldn't ban any flag. If you ban the flag's emblems, then you're banning that flag.
I'm not going to debate whether Georgia should ban (or do you prefer change?) its current flag due to issues of racism. That's Georgia's business, not ours.
You accurately state that some racist groups fly the Confederate emblem, but you should remember that these same racists fly the U.S. flag as well. I love the U.S. flag and the positive things it represents. I don't want it to be restricted.
Have you ever heard of the slippery-slope theory? If you get a symbol restricted, then you can restrict anything with that symbol on it. From there, you can get other symbols restricted using the same or nearly the same reasoning.
RON FERGUSON
BLACKSBURG
LENGTH: Long : 147 linesby CNB