A proposed mosque near ground zero; Jonah Goldberg and the 14th Amendment; for-profit colleges

No common ground

Re “Ground zero tolerance,” Editorial, Aug. 11

As an American Jew, I have always felt profoundly grateful that half of my forebears left Hungary toward the end of the 19th century. By doing so, they and I escaped the Shoah that followed half a century later.

The aspect of the quarrel about the proposed mosque near ground zero that has disturbed me most is that the Anti-Defamation League has aligned itself with those who object to the project. For an organization that describes itself as an enemy of bigotry of all kinds to lend its voice to the bigotry that lumps all Muslims with that minority who are enemies of this country is disheartening.

I hope that saner minds in the organization will heed the calls of the many rabbis who have felt similar distress about this to reconsider their endorsement of what amounts to anti-Muslimism as firmly as they would anti-Semitism. Bigotry is bigotry, no matter whom it directs its hatred toward.

Donald Schwartz

Los Angeles

In your criticism of the Anti-Defamation League and the Simon Wiesenthal Center for our position on the mosque near ground zero, The Times inappropriately charges that we are linking all Muslims to Al Qaeda.

That is a gross misrepresentation of our stand on the issue. We take seriously our commitment to combat all forms of bigotry, including that against Muslims — particularly since 9/11, and especially the charge that all Muslims are terrorists. Our educational programs promote respect and understanding and reach out to people of all faiths, ethnicities and backgrounds.

Our raising questions about the wisdom of building the mosque in the shadow of ground zero is based on the issue of sensitivity to the victims of 9/11 and their families.

We believe unequivocally that the Cordoba Initiative has the right to build there, but we also believe that the goal of reconciliation and healing, which is a stated purpose of the project, would not be well served because of the pain it would cause to many of the victims and their families.

Good people can legitimately disagree about what is the best approach on this issue. It is wrong, however, to castigate the intent and motives of two organizations that have a long and successful record of commitment to fighting the kind of bigotry that we are now accused of abetting.

Abraham H. Foxman

New York

Rabbi Marvin Hier

Los Angeles

The writers are national director of the Anti-Defamation League and dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

Absent in The Times’ critique of the actions of the ADL was mention of legitimate concerns about the creation of a mosque/cultural center proximate to ground zero. This ill-conceived project could reinforce the jihadist impulse in Islam.

What is the nature of Islam in America — can it adjust to minority status in an open, pluralistic society? Certainly events in Holland and Denmark, calls for Sharia law and the rise in homegrown terrorists argue against the possibility of peaceful coexistence.

Can you imagine if, every time the pope was criticized, Catholics started killing journalists? The jury is still out. Reservations about the “ground zero mosque” are necessary and proper.

Barry F. Chaitin

Newport Beach

Thank you for your well-reasoned editorial.

It is sometimes too easy to allow our emotions to overcome what is the correct thing to do.

In this case, the correct thing to do — the American thing to do — is to allow

the Muslim center to be built.

William T. Parker

San Diego

Changing the Constitution

Re “The right way to tinker,” Opinion, Aug. 10

In his column discussing Republican proposals to repeal the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship at birth, Jonah Goldberg accuses me of being opposed to amending the Constitution.

Goldberg is wrong: I am opposed to this proposed change to our Constitution. It is a bad idea and threatens core American values.

The story of our nation’s progress is told through our Constitution’s amendments. The amendments ratified in the wake of the Civil War are key chapters — prohibiting slavery, ensuring equality and citizenship rights, and securing the right to vote free from racial discrimination — in which the promises of liberty first made in the Declaration of Independence were written into the Constitution. I object to reneging on those promises by repealing portions of the 14th Amendment.

“We the People” have amended our Constitution to make our country more democratic and egalitarian, but we have never amended it to make it less so.

Elizabeth Wydra

Washington

The writer is chief counsel of the Constitutional Accountability Center.

It would be nice if we could debate an issue without resorting to straw men and bogus references to the motives of our adversaries.

Goldberg apparently believes that we should give serious consideration to eliminating the birthright citizenship provision from the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Fine. I don’t agree, but it’s a worthy topic of debate.

However, rather than argue the merits of his position, Goldberg uses the topic as an excuse to generalize the thinking of “liberals” and to attack their purportedly unanimous and misguided view of the Constitution.

Rather than explaining why he believes the amendment should be modified, he accuses all “liberals” of hypocrisy and panic over “losing a fair fight.”

In fact, there are more than two kinds of human beings occupying this planet. Our views range across the political spectrum. They’re nuanced.

And it is as silly and counterproductive to view every issue through a

liberal/conservative prism as it is to stereotype the thinking of everyone with whom we disagree.

Michael Dewberry

Pasadena

What he learned in school

Re “Reining in for-profit colleges,” Editorial, Aug. 9

I briefly taught an online course for a for-profit college. I quit when I discovered the school preyed on the educationally disadvantaged and chronically unemployed or underemployed.

As your editorial pointed out, the majority of students received federal guaranteed loans. Two of my students were homeless but still managed to qualify for loans. Both had to quit the program because of lack of computer and Internet access.

Who will end up paying for their student loans? Taxpayers.

In order to keep enrollment up and the revenue flowing, the school’s administrators coerced the instructors to “dumb down” the instruction. Can’t pass a test? Not a problem; retake it without a penalty. Still can’t pass? Submit a 250-page “research paper” and forget the test.

Even with rampant social promotion and grade inflation, more than half of my students failed to complete their course of study.

Milt Stone

Valencia

The editorial opens a big window on the growth of for-profit “colleges” and our current weak standards for such educational businesses.

Apparently one can go to a shopping mall and open a “college” without any oversight.

So what is a college?

Clearly we need a system for evaluating and crediting the growing number of for-profit businesses that profess to provide postsecondary education. Hospitals are reviewed, nursing homes must meet standards, and dentists and other professionals are licensed too.

The quality of higher education is important for our society. Public oversight of for-profit colleges needs prompt attention.

James Birren

Thousand Oaks

The writer is a professor emeritus at USC.