Why Do We Pick on the Defenseless?Editor: I was appalled...


March 02, 1991

Why Do We Pick on the Defenseless?

Editor: I was appalled to read that the Baltimore City administration to save funds would cut to 10 days from 30 days the storage period for an evicted person's personal effects.

I recently heard a homeless woman's testimony of how she was evicted by an unscrupulous landlord who told her she complained too much (the last complaint being when her child was almost hit by a sink that fell off the wall). Obviously she lived in sub-standard housing and did not know her legal rights. She did not have the money at the end of 30 days to reclaim her possessions.

Why do we always pick on the defenseless? The personal effects of evicted tenants sit on the streets for several days where anyone could help themselves and the elements beat down.

Why do we need a third party to come in, pick up these possessions, store them and sell them at the end of 30 days when unclaimed, keeping a part of the sale money? Aren't there enough vacant buildings in the city where these possessions could be stored by the city and under honest city employees, and the cost minimized giving the poor a better chance to reclaim what little they have?

Why do we always pick on these least able to defend themselves instead of trying to help them solve their problems?

`Elizabeth R. Schreiber.


No Suit

Editor: Contrary to recent articles on redistricting in The Sun and Evening Sun, the American Civil Liberties Union has not threatened to file suit over Mayor Kurt Schmoke's redistricting plan. We, like some others, have concerns about whether or not the proposal meets the requirements of the Voting Rights laws. But we have made no decision regarding a lawsuit, and have made no threats about one.

Stuart Comstock-Gay.


The writer is executive director of the ACLU.

No Compromise

Editor: In his recent letter to the editor, Brian Morrison expressed concern that the R&D complex being planned for location on the UMBC campus will result in corporate dollars compromising the academic integrity of the faculty. It is evident that during his employment at UMBC, Morrison learned little about the academic side of this institution and of the motivations and aspirations that drive me and my fellow independent-spirited (sometime rebellious) teacher/researchers.

Yes, many of us do need and strive to obtain the external resources to support our research and creativity. But this is not achieved at the expense of our integrity and independence as scholars. Our quest for funds will certainly not result in ''merger'' of the School of Engineering with Westinghouse nor will my Department of Biological Sciences (UMBC has no botany department) open a flower shop.

To assure that Morrison's uniformed scenario remains a piece of fiction, UMBC's Faculty Senate and administrators are engaged in developing objective controls and criteria that will assure high standards of academic integrity as an integral part of the linkages being UMBC and its future R&D associates, linkages that we expect to be synergistic. The UMBC faculty will insist that freedom of scholarship and creativity will not be compromised.

If Morrison were truly concerned about the future of higher education at UMBC, he might better put his energy into working to increase funding for this campus (and, for that matter, for the other 10 University of Maryland System campuses), particularly for disciplines such as those in the arts and humanities that are least likely to benefit directly from R&D synergy.

Robert P. Burchard.


Black Marsh

Editor: I am appalled at the plans to ''improve'' Black Marsh Park. At a time when parks are being closed across the state, when the governor and others are discussing raising taxes and when the state can't afford pay raises for state workers, I find it unbelievable that the Department of Natural Resources and the governor want to spend even more money to destroy a pristine nature area.

!Marilyn Liebegott. Baltimore.

Morning's Glory

Editor: In the reprint of Page 536 from H.L. Mencken's, "Thirty-Five Years of Newspaper Work" which appeared in The Sun's Opinion * Commentary page, Mencken wrote of former management's concern with improving the editorial quality of the paper and cited his approval of Paul Patterson's suggestion to remove the Bentztown Bard's "countrified column of Prose and Verse."

Neither Patterson nor Mencken could have envisioned that after the passage of more than 60 years, someone would remember the masthead opening sentence which introduced Folger McKinsey's Bentztown Bard column. It read as follows:

"It was only a glad 'Good Morning' as he walked along his way, but it turned to morning glory throughout the livelong day."

They were and still are words to live by.

Milton Albert.


Best Teachers

Editor: In a recent Sun editorial entitled ''Hypocrisy in Suburbia'', the school boards of Montgomery County and Howard County were challenged ''to turn to an obvious area for savings: the payroll.''

Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.