Mail

Free -- but not cheap
I read Allie Johnson's article on Topeka State Hospital and Dr. Cynthia Turnbull ("On Dangerous Grounds," May 4-10). I am the attorney who represented TSH in that case. Johnson's article devoted little space to our defense. It was told almost entirely from Dr. Turnbull's perspective, even though Johnson had access to the transcripts, evidence, and court files and could have easily included more about the defense. As a result, her article is very one-sided and smacks of sensationalism.

Oh well, I guess one should not expect unbiased, objective journalism from a newspaper of such dubious quality that it must be given away for free....-- Alan Hughes

Topeka, Kan.

ROTC debate rages on ...
I would like to thank Andrew Miller for his article on our efforts to reform the NJROTC program at Shawnee Mission North ("Opponents of ROTC Up in Arms About Military Presence in Schools," April 13-19). The Johnson County Sun and The Kansas City Star had been covering this issue for a couple of months, but neither paper has succeeded in publishing an unbiased story. I am grateful for the in-depth coverage and to Miller for actually writing about more than the conservative side of the story. Thank you, PitchWeekly.

I would also like to respond to the letter from Kelly Olinde of Belton, Mo. (Mail, April 27-May 3):

1. This is America, and we can voice whatever "stupidity" we feel.

2. I am aware of only one school shooting associated with ROTC. A Detroit JROTC squad leader shot and wounded one person, and in 1994, she ordered a "hit" at her high school in which one student was shot twice. However, other crimes have been committed. In Arizona, a 17-year-old ROTC enthusiast wore military fatigues as he murdered nine residents of a Buddhist temple. Gangs have been formed that have murdered, vandalized, and robbed.

3. Mr. Emiliano Huet-Vaughn is not antisocial.

4. This country was not started by war. It was started by people who weren't able to say what they wanted or believe what they believed. That's all we're doing.

5. I am amazed that you devoted three paragraphs to criticizing an entire group because of the appearance of five of its members. In fact, I find it shallow of you to take any time at all to use it against our OPINION, which is neither a hairdo nor a piece of clothing.

I promise to research your side more if you promise to research ours. The only difference is I won't change my mind.-- Mary Chakhtoura

Kansas City, Mo.

I know that you are just reporting the news, but the ROTC story was by far the most disrespectful thing I have seen in my life directed toward our military. The men who teach JROTC are retired military veterans and have served their time. They are authorized to teach students enrolled in JROTC the safe and proper way to handle their pellet rifles when they are firing on a controlled range. As far as the drill team, they use demilitarized rifles for the purposes of drill and ceremony only. They are not or could not be handled in any other manner. I have some background on what I am talking about because I am a former Drill Team and Rifle Team commander at East and Paseo high schools in the Kansas City, Missouri, School District, as well as the 2nd cadet in command of the entire KCMSD JROTC my senior year in high school.

As far as Emiliano Huet-Vaughn's comments about the current army and "war crimes" that are not portrayed in the history classes taught in JROTC, he needs to have a lot more respect for the men and women who have fought and died for their country so that he can even say what he is saying, because if he were in China, he would already be in prison. I would love to see Huet-Vaughn talk like that to some man who is in a wheelchair or is blind because he believed in America and fought for those beliefs, or even better yet, let him take a walk through Arlington National Cemetery and let him read tombstones for a day. Then maybe he and his friends could learn a little respect.

Yours very sincerely and respectfully.-- David White

Kansas City, Mo.

Andrew Miller's article on the ROTC raises some relevant issues across many generational boundaries about ROTC, the military, and our presence on campus. As a member of the Army for 20 years and a ROTC graduate, I find myself still interested in what our young adults are thinking these days. However, this is not the purpose of my note. Rather, it is the title of the article that I wonder about. Having read the article closely myself, I must ask you if you think it adequately represents the perspective of the students.

Certainly the title attracts the eye, and the picture of the students does too. But after reading the article, I'm not sure I see the logic to the title. Are these students "opponents of ROTC" or of specific elements and methods of training and education with which the ROTC unit engages in? To me, the title implies they are in opposition to ROTC "presence" on the campus. Are they? I did not get that feeling from their discussion in the article. Did you? May I ask you to explain your point of view about the title? I'd like to understand your thinking about it so I can better appreciate your perspective.