More from our inbox:

To the Editor:

Re “Canadian Bagel Rivals Unite Against Environmentalists” (Montreal Dispatch, Nov. 27):

The story of two rival bagel makers in Montreal who have joined forces to oppose the demands of “anti-bagel radicals” — those local residents and policymakers who want to ban their wood-burning ovens because of the environmental risks they pose — sounds like something straight out of an episode of “Curb Your Enthusiasm” or “Seinfeld.” But it’s no laughing matter.

While wood-burning ovens help make Montreal bagels the best in the world (sorry, New York), the scientific consensus is demonstrably clear: Wood smoke, whether from an industrial oven or a home fireplace, is a major health hazard and contributor to urban air pollution.

Because of this unhappy truth, I now know what it must feel like for religious people to be told that their cherished beliefs collide with reality. The alternative — in this case, making Montreal bagels in non-wood-burning ovens — is sacrilege.

Mark Bessoudo
London

Lesson From the Hearings: We Need Term Limits

To the Editor:

Re “Lessons of the Trump Inquiry,” by Susan E. Rice (Op-Ed, Nov. 23):

The No. 1 lesson from the Trump inquiry is that there must be term limits for our legislative branch. How many of us would willingly give up a potential lifetime position with a solid salary, amazing benefits, plenty of time off as well as some genuine celebrity, in order to do the right thing? Not many. That’s realistic and it’s human.

Never before has it been so apparent that term limits are an essential component of our democracy. Holding onto that job will almost always “trump” standing up for principle. This time it’s the Republicans; next time it could be the Democrats.

Renee Longstreet
Bainbridge Island, Wash.

The Flaw in a Higher Education Bill

To the Editor:

Re “In Back Rooms, College Inc. Clamors for Access to Cash,” by Kevin Carey (Business, Nov. 16):

Mr. Carey misses the point in his attack on higher education associations and accreditors in stating his support for a proposal in a House higher education reauthorization bill that requires accreditors to establish minimum benchmarks.

The issue is not that accreditors need to have benchmarks, nor is it that we think that student outcomes are not important. Accreditors should have meaningful benchmarks. The issue is that under this legislation the secretary of education gets to approve them.

This would put academic control of every college and university in the country in the hands of politically appointed federal officials.

That is not a power we believe any secretary of education, Democratic or Republican, should possess.

Ted Mitchell
Washington
The writer is president of the American Council on Education.

Fixing the Political Imbalance

To the Editor:

Re “Bill Gates, I Implore You to Connect Some Dots” (Op-Ed, nytimes.com, Nov. 11):

Michael Tomasky is right that extreme wealth inequality necessarily threatens democracy. To his fear that inequality fuels demagogy should be added another concern: A society with an oligarchic concentration of wealth is likely to function as a political oligarchy as well.

Fueled by the Supreme Court’s horrendous decision in Citizens United a decade ago, the superrich now decisively dominate election financing. The top 100 donors are responsible for nearly three-quarters of funding for super PACs, the most important political committees in the post-Citizens United era.

The outsize role of the superrich affects who runs for office, who wins and what policy options are considered “reasonable.” Political and economic inequality fuel each other, and together are doing severe damage to our country and our planet.

Reforms aiming to de-concentrate wealth necessarily should also include political reform, including a system of public and small-donor financing of elections (included in the transformative H.R. 1, the For the People Act) and a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

Robert Weissman
Washington
The writer is president of Public Citizen, the public interest advocacy group.

L.G.B.T.Q. People and Foster Care

To the Editor:

Re “Proposed Rule Could Deny L.G.B.T. People an Adoption” (news article, Nov. 3):

As an adoptive parent in a same-sex marriage, I’m proud that New York has been one of the most progressive states on this issue. We cannot afford to go backward when there are thousands of children in foster care in our state.

Anyone who believes that L.G.B.T.Q. people cannot provide a healthy home environment for a child is not only being discriminatory, but is also advocating against the best interests of children and sending a damaging message to youth who identify as L.G.B.T.Q. and who are disproportionately represented in the child welfare system.

Child welfare organizations should never place their personal or religious beliefs above the needs of children in their care. J.C.C.A., the child welfare organization I lead (formerly known as the Jewish Child Care Association), is a historically Jewish organization, and our values are firmly grounded in the Jewish tradition. These guide our understanding that children need loving and nurturing families of all faiths, combinations and backgrounds.

It is fair to restrict taxpayer funding for agencies that choose to discriminate against particular groups. After all, that funding comes from taxpayers from all walks of life.

Ronald Richter
New York
The writer, a former judge, is chief executive of J.C.C.A.

Source: Read Full Article