Online only letters to the editor

Higher education

Editor, The Times:

I read Dr. Toni Murdock's "A higher civic calling for higher education," [Times, guest commentary, June 8] with excitement. Dr. Murdock is correct to point out the ways business interests have permeated both the goals and the funding of higher education, undermining both the university's objectivity and its public purpose.

But her answer ignores the fundamental problem: the increasing reliance of higher education on private capital. The public must limit the influence of private money on campuses. This will also require a greater commitment of public funds to higher education at both private and public institutions.

Adding community service will not revive the university's civic mission unless we can revive the liberal arts and sciences and ensure that universities and colleges do not continue to rely on corporations to fund their research.

— Johann Neem, Bellingham

Toni Murdock of Antioch University has provided a superlative reflection on the civic and political awareness that must be nurtured and brought to fruition in today's college graduates. Our world is in desperate need of fresh, energetic, intelligent, ethically aware individuals who recognize their responsibilities must go beyond the personal sphere.

Murdock's affirmation of an expansive educational curriculum that enables students to develop an appreciation of "diversity and tolerance" as well as "a broad and deep grasp of history and cultures" is laudable, and should be pursued with vigor. A university education that is primarily utilitarian in scope is a stunted one.

An understanding of genuine academic excellence at this point in history should logically encompass a spirit of social justice and cooperation. Hopefully there are many at the various helms of academia who will be receptive to Murdock's cogent essay.

— Joe Martin, Seattle

Toni Murdock makes a valuable contribution toward better public understanding of the purpose of higher education. But she could also have made the point that from the individual student's standpoint, the purpose of education is not to make a lot of money, but to make one a more enlightened creature and a better human being. Out of this, will come the sense of noblesse oblige of which Dr. Murdock speaks, as well as the capability to earn more money.

For many students — perhaps the majority — that perspective may have more appeal than emphasizing primarily just the obligation to society.

— Donald Marsh, Bainbridge Island

Viaduct vote

"Viaduct decision: Should there be a public vote?" [News, June 8] shocked me by saying that some of the council members believe the public does not want a vote about the future of the Alaskan Way Viaduct or that there may not be a mandate. How dare they! Just to make it clear, I do want the right to vote on the future of the viaduct.

I do not believe I voted anyone into office to give them the right to spend money we do not have on any project — especially one of this size and with such an impact on the community. It is the council's job to represent the people, not to dictate what it wants. Give us the opportunity to vote, you may be surprised at the outcome and there may be a clear mandate from the public. I would like to know that the public has spoken.

It took five votes to finally kill the monorail. At least give the voters of Seattle one vote to give the council our opinion on the matter.

I use the viaduct/Aurora almost exclusively to get from the north end of Seattle to the south. Interstate 5 is much too crowded at almost any time of day. We need to keep the viaduct open to have a strong infrastructure in place. I can't even imagine adding 100,000 cars a day to the already overcrowded streets or the freeway. We haven't even experienced gridlock yet!

— Jennifer Greenfield, Seattle

A public vote on the viaduct problem may be the only way to stimulate creative thinking on the subject.

Are the only alternatives an ugly, noisy, elevated structure and a tunnel?

How about an elevated structure with Japanese-style sound baffles? How about planning for vines and plants like the Hanging Gardens of Babylon? How about planning for footings that will allow for the future development of a waterfront monorail with a station at the ferry terminal?

— James VanderMeer, Seattle

Finally people are thinking out-of-the-1950s-box and considering alternative Seattle-waterfront urban designs. High gas prices, war for oil, increasing demand for urban living and a national public transit renaissance in the form of new rail construction projects, suggest we shouldn't limit the discussion of fundamentally flawed car-centered options to the viaduct.

The solution can't be chosen simply for its ability to accommodate the current number of viaduct auto trips. A more holistic urban-design approach that assumes greater emphasis on people and public-transit and a reduced emphasis on cars is in order. We can't keep building cities designed to serve soon-to-be-outdated transportation behavior patterns dependent on Americans' continued access to cheap energy.

Why not eliminate the need for a high-capacity waterfront roadway by eliminating some portion of those auto trips altogether? Convert some percentage of current auto trips into transit and pedestrian trips. Disperse others onto alternative north-south streets. The fewer trips that remain can then be easily accommodated by a human-scaled waterfront boulevard.

In summary: Demolish the viaduct, build a waterfront surface boulevard, improve circulation on downtown's existing north-south avenues, improve existing bus service, modernize the waterfront streetcar and extend it north and south, and build more downtown housing for downtown workers.

— Mike Moedritzer, Seattle

Council members who say they don't think the public is much interested in a vote on the viaduct replacement issue are very badly out of touch. Or alternatively, they are very well in touch with people who badly want a tunnel regardless of cost impacts and don't want the general public to have any say in the matter.

Wasn't one of the founding principles of this country "No taxation without representation"? Let us vote!

— Dave Albergine, Seattle

Freedom of information

Always busy chipping away at our democracy, our Supreme Court has put a new stranglehold on the free flow of information., On-the-job public-employee experts will no longer be legally allowed to give the press information concerning the agencies they work for. Times columnist Danny Westneat gave a beautiful example of this in his "When whistle-blowers are silent" [News, June 3].

When a spokesman for the federal agency in charge of wild salmon in our area wants to give the press information about what's good for our salmon stocks — something he is an expert on because he has extensive, inside knowledge — he can't, "Leaving all our information to come from political hacks."

Big Brother is quietly approaching. Since the Supreme Court ruling, it is more difficult for the press to obtain information from reliable, knowledgeable sources. How close will we get to complete government control of the information that gets to us?

— Gail DiBernardo, Brier

Referendum Sunday

In regard to "Leaders worry apathy doomed referendum"[News, June 8], I'd like to suggest that these religious leaders consider the possibility that it is they who are out of step with their beliefs and congregations, not the other way around.

Despite the inappropriate usage of church meetings to pass the initiative [opposing gay-rights legislation] down the pews on "Referendum Sunday," their congregations recognized this wolf-in-sheep's clothing initiative and chose instead to act with justice, mercy and love by not signing.

I am encouraged to see that the true tenants of Jesus might actually be alive and well in conservative circles despite current leadership.

— Cheri Briar, Woodinville