Letters to the Editor

Letters: Readers discuss politically correct Christmas, Title IX and ‘Healthy Homes’

Whine-along songs

What would Christmas be without some Scrooge having some problem or slight?

Recently, “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” was dropped from some radio stations’ playlists because the lyrics are perceived as promoting unwanted, aggressive behavior. (Dec. 4, 3A, “Ohio radio station pulls holiday song; KC station gets complaints”) And “Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer” has been dinged primarily because it supposedly depicts bullying.

What other carols, with their subliminal messages, are next in this trek down insanity road? Consider these possibilities:

“Up on the House Top” promotes cruelty to animals because reindeer are on top of a roof.

“Jingle Bells” and “Sleigh Ride” have horses pulling sleighs in snow.

“Let It Snow” has hidden intentions.

“Frosty the Snowman” equates to global warming because the snowman melts.

“The Christmas Song” and “(There’s No Place Like) Home for the Holidays” promote fossil fuel use. After all, “The traffic is terrific.”

“The Twelve Days of Christmas” is the overall winner for offending PETA, #MeToo and environmentalists. What happens to those birds? What kind of aggressive behavior will be going on among the maids, ladies, drummers, pipers and lords? And what of that tree?

Seems the only acceptable song left is, “You’re a Mean One, Mr. Grinch,” because these complainers are — as one line in the song says — “as cuddly as a cactus.”

Merry Christmas!

Pam Zubeck

Leawood

Stand for equity

Students should not have to experience sexual harassment or violence. That’s the promise made more than 45 years ago by Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination in any institution or program that receives federal funding. But Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has proposed a new set of regulations that would fundamentally weaken Title IX and put at risk the promise of equity.

The Department of Education’s actions amount to a blatant rollback of strong and necessary protections, particularly for student survivors of sexual assault. The proposed regulations, issued Nov. 16, would weaken Title IX’s protections by narrowing the definition of what constitutes “sexual harassment” or “assault” to potentially exclude much of the abuse students experience. Also, the rules would make it much harder for students to come forward and receive the support they need.

The American Association of University Women stands with survivors. We remain committed to protecting and defending Title IX and pursuing its vigorous enforcement.

We encourage you to join us in speaking up and fighting back against this attack on Title IX. Public comments are being accepted through Jan. 28. To voice your opinion, visit www.regulations.gov.

Kay Engler

Lynn Bruner

Public policy co-chairs

American Association

of University Women

Kansas City branch

Overland Park

No credibility

A couple of weeks ago, we received the Kansas City “Healthy Homes” rental property registration (rip-off) forms. Never mind we have been registering our rental properties with the city every year.

To us, it means an additional $280 a year in addition to high property taxes, insurance and more we already pay.

Now Mayor Pro Tem Scott Wagner and Councilman Quinton Lucas, who have no skin in the game, are proposing new taxes to pursue affordable housing for poor people. What do they think we property owners have been doing for years?

Giving the city more money for anything that sounds like a social program is throwing it away. Mayor Sly James and his cohorts will try to pull the wool over your eyes, spending money on everything except the intended purposes.

How is that non-taxpayer-funded new airport working for you?

Ricci Ballesteros

Kansas City

True pre-K needs

Pre-kindergarten education is vitally important to help ensure children’s success in school. Kansas City Public Schools’ failure to support the mayor’s pre-K initiative is very disheartening. (Dec. 13, 1A, “KC school district won’t support mayor’s pre-K tax”)

The district’s concerns about controlling the money, and whether private or parochial programs would get funding, are typical of its past behavior. It’s not about what’s best for the child, but what’s best for the district and its bank accounts.

If the school district offered more pre-K programs, then perhaps parents wouldn’t need to seek out private or parochial programs. That was my experience with the school district 14 years ago: I was put on a wait list, and maybe, just maybe, I would get my children enrolled in a pre-K program.

Instead, I put my kids in a parochial program, paid tuition — as well as my property tax contributions toward public schools — and moved on from the public schools system.

It’s sad that nothing really has changed in 14 years.

Penny Jones

Kansas City

  Comments