Schools should do more

Re "Before tragedy, a lifetime of taunts" (Page A1, Jan. 15): My thoughts go to Jeffrey Fehr and his family. I hope they know how much love is being sent their way, and that they and Jeffrey will not be forgotten.

Jeffrey's family supported him in the home, but are we doing enough to protect our kids at school? The Granite Bay High School principal's comments smacked of a canned response to take the onus off the school's agents: "(Jeffrey) had some struggles … some issues with other students, none rose to the level where school discipline was involved."

I don't believe Jeffrey was protected at Granite High in ways he should have been, and the inaction sustained his suffering.

What I do believe is that not only Granite Bay High, but scores of schools across California and the United States do little, if anything, in proactive ways to teach acceptance for all who live among us, including gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

– Angela F. Luna, Sacramento

Stand up against bullying

The Bee did an excellent job of telling the story of growing up as an effeminate boy, coming out as a gay high school student, and the critical social and cultural response. However, the advice to victims of bullying by Israel Kalman is misdirected: "When you're bullied, don't get upset about it. Treat the bully like a friend, like you want to be treated, and the bullying will stop." Dismissing the feelings of the victim, encouraging the victim to "not get upset," and placing responsibility on the victim for the continuation of bullying is insulting and contrary to what we know changes bullying behavior: Isolate the bully socially, make the bully responsible for his or her behavior and seek ways for the bully to empathize with the victim. To stop bullying we must all be willing to stand up against the bully and stand with the victim.

– Melinda Lauten, Fair Oaks

Bullying is never justifiable

The recent media focus on students being bullied because of their sexual orientation – real or perceived – has served to rightfully elevate the debate about bullying in general.

As a child, I attended a parochial school where this behavior seemed to be the national pastime. The bullying was relentless for anyone who did not fit in with the "cool kids" for one reason or another. Bullying has been going on forever, for many different reasons, none of them justifiable. I'm convinced some of my former classmates must have deep emotional scars – or, at the very least, profoundly painful memories – from those schoolyard experiences. Good-natured ribbing and friendly horseplay are a normal part of growing up, of kids being kids, but overt, callous abuse should never be. In my view, every good citizen needs to refuse to participate in or condone bullying of any kind.

– Bob Giovati, Orangevale

Race can't define merit

Re "New diversity guidelines can break college barriers" (Viewpoints, Jan. 15): Promoting racial and ethnic diversity within colleges and universities would expand cultural awareness among students, including minorities who come from ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods.

However, race is nothing more than one's skin color. The new diversity guidelines fail to recognize that race does not necessarily define a promising student. Sometimes, it seems as if colleges pursue diversity for the sake of stating statistics that uphold their reputations as "fair institutions" and "champions of equity." Students demonstrating potential, including minorities who have overcome poverty or unfortunate circumstances, should be admitted for their character, not for their race.

Designed to increase college enrollment of minorities, the "pipeline" programs mentioned in the article are great because they provide access to many educational opportunities at an early age, such that these students can stand by their merits by college application season.

– Lindsey Wong, Sacramento

Train article missed key point

Re "Spain's trains hold lessons for California" (Page A1, Jan. 15): The front-page analysis of Spain's high-speed rail system, presenting the obvious shortcomings that need be kept in mind, fails to emphasize the most important intangible benefit that this mass transit system serves the civilization on this planet, not just the populace of Spain.

Simply to underscore the costs and ignore the values, a presently popular trait so prevalent among many in the United States, is a path to disaster denied by ignorant politicians as to how scientific method really works in the scientific community. It is time to compartmentalize the distinct domains of political arguments from the scientific reasoning.

Even the scientific works of Albert Einstein were not accepted by all scientists. Just because there are a handful of individuals claiming to be scientists who have skepticism about climate change, that does not give politicians any leg to stand on to decry the climate change projections of the scientific community.

Mass transit is the only solution to saving this planet from the curse of fossil fuel.

– Brahama D. Sharma, Chico

Heed Spain's experience

Excellent analysis by Tim Sheehan; I'm just sorry that the astute comments from the Spanish were at the end of the article. Why are we "starting in the sparely populated middle" … when if we started where the greatest population is … "it will have an impact so the people will support it."

I would like to know why we are not starting in Los Angeles or San Francisco. It seems that the system would get the greatest use if it were built where the greatest concentration of the state's population is.

– Robert Mandelson, Sacramento

Kill high-speed rail now

The new SurveyUSA poll about high-speed rail confirms recent Field and Probolsky polls stating that California voters overwhelmingly don't want limited taxpayer dollars spent on a new $90 billion train, particularly with current cuts to K-12 schools, the mentally ill, seniors, etc.

Democrats must listen to the voters and not authorize the sale of new HSR bonds/loans, or they will be voted out.

Democrats can ignore voters, in favor of their well-connected union supporters, for only so long, and polls show that time has long passed. The lies sold to the voters in the November 2008 initiative have been exposed.

Kill the project now, don't authorize billions in new debt, or prepare to be voted out.

– Mike Brown, Burlingame

More reporting needed on canal

Re "Brown still faces tough water fight" (Dan Walters, Jan. 15): Some real investigative reporting is needed regarding the peripheral canal. To gloss over the fallacies propagated by the advocates – Westlands Water District, et al. – with some vague reference to Delta habitat restoration is unworthy of your readers.

There are two main reasons for the canal:

• It eliminates the threat to the endangered Delta smelt habitat by bypassing it, the only obstacle standing between Westlands and the complete collapse of the salmon runs.

• It will solve the saltwater intrusion problem. The twin problems of supplying salt/brackish water to their customers as well as damaging the Tracy pumps will be eliminated.

Perhaps someone could explain to this hydrogeologist how diverting more fresh water from the Sacramento area can restore a habitat nearly destroyed by diversions farther down. Blithe references to "habitat restoration" do not suffice!

– Sue Erikson, Sacramento

'Excess water' is a myth

Re "Critic painted skewed picture of water transfers" (Forum, Jan. 15): Sen. Dianne Feinstein, please consider the north state doesn't have "excess water."

During very dry years, Sacramento Valley districts sold water to help others by fallowing farmland, causing impacts to the local economy and environment. Even if you accept these hits to the area of origin, can we agree that responding to acute needs is one thing, but chronic addiction to another region's water is financially and environmentally bankrupt, e.g. depletion of Owens River and San Joaquin River?

– Barbara Vlamis, Chico

Thanks for insight on blindness

Re "Going blind, I see more clearly" (Forum, Jan. 15): Thank you to Eva Rutland for sharing her insights on how to view the world not through rose-colored glasses but apparently no glasses at all.

Losing one's vision is generally not something to praise, but Rutland did a beautiful job at describing how to look at life in a most positive way.

I'm no ophthalmologist, but I'd say she's got 20/20 vision of a different sort and clearly hasn't bothered to host herself a pity party. Instead she added to her spice rack (great art, Nathaniel Levine) and created a mighty fine piece of writing that we can all benefit by reading.

– Susy Alarcon Arriaga, Davis

FROM FACEBOOK

As I started to read it, I chuckled a little bit over the simple mistakes being made, putting cinnamon in the green beans and pepper in the applesauce … but this is the changes that Eva must get accustomed to, which is no laughing matter. Many take their sight for granted (including myself at times) and it's truly a blessing to see. But it's amazing that Eva can "see" more clearly now. Thanks for the great article.

– Angela Elizabeth

California Authors Series

To read the series, go to:

www.sacbee.com/CAauthors

To connect with us on Facebook, go to:

www.facebook.com/sacramentobee

www.facebook.com/sacbeeeditboard

WRITE US A LETTER

Include: Name, mailing address and phone number.

Length: 150 words or less.

BEST WAY TO SUBMIT

Online form: www.sacbee.com/sendletter

E-mail: letters@sacbee.com Other: Letters, P.O. Box 15779, Sacramento, CA 95852

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.