This piece was unintentionally ironic and did not shed light on the issues

I have been following with interest the news about the DOJ report on its investigation of the SPD. I have not yet formed an opinion on the matter and have been looking for more information before doing so.

When I saw the piece titled “DOJ owes Seattle police an apology” [Opinion, Feb. 9], and saw the author was an assistant professor at Seattle University, I started to read it in the hopes that a scholarly perspective might shed some light on the issues raised in the report.

In the piece the author rails against the DOJ for being overly dramatic. Further, he accuses the DOJ of making baseless assertions without reference to its methodology, failing to meet its statutory obligations and producing a report solely to “incite the public” and promote “a baseless political cause.”

I found the piece unintentionally ironic because the author himself uses loaded language to dramatic affect, makes sweeping assertions without reference to facts, draws inflammatory conclusions with no basis in his arguments and appears to promote a political agenda allied against the DOJ. I had hoped the professor, from his learned perspective and his experience in writing, would have been able to shed light on the issues.

Unfortunately, I am left with the impression that, because he could not make a reasoned and persuasive argument, his point of view is as yet unsupported and the space he occupied in your newspaper was thus wasted entirely.

I am hoping that in the future perhaps you can allot space on your page for someone who can make such an argument and perhaps move us all to a closer understanding of the issues.

— David B. Gill, Seattle