OPINION: Talk of the Town

Attendance review board can be useful

This is in reference to the column by Edmund Perea, “There is hope, addressing youth crime.” I was raised in New Mexico, lived in California 30 years. I was a juvenile probation officer and spent years assigned as a school probation officer. Schools in California had student attendance review boards. The boards were made up of school administrators, prosecutors, nurses, counselors, pastors, probation officers and resource officers. Hearings were held for parents and students to meet with the board and explain absences. The families were placed on a contract and offered many resources. Why don’t New Mexico schools have these boards to hold families accountable? A prosecutor or district attorney could explain to parents how they could receive fines if their children are not in school. It is sad to see poor attendance and no action. When kids aren’t in school, they are busy committing crimes.

Thank you, it does take a community.

Ross Sarmiento

Placitas

Tariffs were done haphazardly

In an effort to grow the American economy, President Donald Trump has instituted huge tariffs on everything we import.

While I can understand the possibility of forcing steel, car and other companies to build factories here, I have a hard time with some of the other products Trump has started to tariff.

In an effort to help American farmers, there are now tariffs on all sorts of produce like bananas, coffee and avocados. However, these tariffs will only hurt consumers with higher prices because we don’t have the climate to grow these products.

The same is true of his effort to help American miners. Many of the minerals we import do not exist here. Again, consumers will pay higher prices and there still won’t be more miners finding jobs.

Placing tariffs on countries that are only inhabited by penguins doesn’t help any American industries at all because we don’t consume penguins.

Tariffs can be an effective tool in building or protecting American industries. However, the shotgun, haphazard way with which the president has applied these tariffs does not instill a great deal of confidence in his ability to guide our economy through its challenges.

Arthur Flicker

Albuquerque

UNM should hold fast on affirmative action

I write as graduate of the University of New Mexico, and a retired member of its faculty. UNM is proposing changing its affirmative action hiring policies in response to threats from the federal government to cut off funding unless it does so. The changes are a needless surrender to the president’s bullying tactics, and history teaches us that surrendering to bullies never works. The time to stop these attacks on academic freedom, and the civil rights of all Americans, is now.

These policies were necessary and legal when they were adopted. All that has changed is the administration is making extortionate threats against universities around the country, using the “big stick” of federal money to beat them into adopting policies it likes. These threats are not law. If the federal government takes legal action, or cuts off funds, if these changes are not made, fight those actions in court. The university must believe the current policies are lawful; they remain so until a court says otherwise. Congress appropriates federal grant money, and the president does not have the authority to stop it because the university has policies he does not like.

The worst that happens is that a court holds, however mistakenly, that the current policies violate the law, and that the administration is justified in cutting off funds if they are not changed. But then the change would be a result of a lawful court order rather than the demands of a would-be autocrat.

Yes, this might cause the university serious financial problems. But appeasement has incalculable costs. A president who can coerce a university into doing his lawless bidding on hiring policies will not hesitate to coerce its course offerings, its teaching, its research, its very soul. The time to fight a bully is the first time he swings at you.

Peter Kierst

Furlong, Pennsylvania

Homelessness needs a new approach

With all due respect to those who desire to help the homeless, the new “safe spaces” are just an extension of the sanctuary city status. This will only exasperate the problem for Albuquerque. Since the current administration declared the city a sanctuary, homelessness and crime have risen dramatically. There is a connection there. Truth be told, most citizens disapprove of the homeless living on the streets, polluting our pubic spaces and placing a drain on public services. Yet, the issue is real and will not go away until we make the determined effort to make it so.

Homelessness, despite what those who desire to help say, is really not complicated. There are those who are homeless through no fault of their own and will do whatever is needed to get back into becoming a productive member of society. We need to identify these and do what we can to help them achieve success.

On the other hand, there are those who enjoy the freedom of not having to be responsible with their lives or the property of others. Not being a responsible party to society means being free from the duty of citizenship. Being a good steward of myself, my family and what has been placed in my care, is the hallmark of good citizenry. We, as a society, need to do what is needed for these by declaring that they can no longer live like that within the city limits. It is the most loving thing we can do for them. Consequences should be designed to cause change in those in whom it affects.

The citizens and elected officials of Albuquerque need to do the loving thing and make a decision. These issues will not solve themselves. Are we going to exasperate the problem or solve it?

Gary Hays

Bernalillo

A suggestion for DOGE pronunciation

Dear Editor,

I am a retired linguist and dialectologist writing to point out and solve a linguistic problem.

Every time Americans try to pronounce the abbreviation for Department of Government Efficiency, they falter.

Speakers of American English hesitate pronouncing DOGE [doewdj] because the sound [owdje] doesn’t exist in American English. It is a sound from French (Limoge pottery is an example).

If one were so inclined, one could argue that [oewdj] is an un-American sound.

I suggest that you and your readers start pronouncing DOGE in an American way. The American way to pronounce it is “doggie.”

I suggest it be written DOG-E to assist people making this correction.

Here is a linguistic three for: 1. Correct American English pronunciation; 2. Patriotic pronunciation; 3. Pronunciation which injects levity where it is sorely needed.

Rita Getty

Albuquerque