It's simply wrong to insult your school principal

My lovely Sunday morning was ruined when I read "Discipline Over Parody Sparks Suit: Student Contends Rights Under First Amendment Were Violated" (Region, Feb. 25).

I read about Justin Layshock, who, when he was a senior at Hickory High School in Mercer County in December 2005, created an insulting profile of the high school principal on MySpace. He was suspended for 10 days and placed in an alternative education program. I read the argument that his words about the principal were not threatening. I read about his rights of free speech, and I read that his parents are suing. What I didn't read about is right vs. wrong. There's the crime.

If a child of mine did what Justin Layshock did, the punishment from the school district would pale in comparison to the privileges and lifestyle changes that would occur in our home. How proud his parents must be. I wonder if their three younger children were read to from the MySpace Web site at bedtime?

Here's an idea: Spend more time parenting and less time clogging up our courts. Just a thought.

TARA L. REIS
Churchill

---

Order in class

When one thinks of a classroom, he or she may envision students sitting in a seat, being on their best behavior, and paying close attention to every word that the teacher says. In this day and age, that is not the norm.

Teachers spend more time disciplining disruptive students than teaching the curriculum. These disruptive and disrespectful students are interfering with their peers learning by constantly behaving inappropriately. This inappropriate behavior consists of spitting, swearing, throwing furniture, fighting, etc. The only option a teacher has is to remove that student from the classroom. These students will then suffer a consequence, but the consequences do not curb their poor behavior in anyway. An alternative school provides an option to remove the repeat offender and sends a clear message to the remaining students.

I believe, wholeheartedly, that Pittsburgh Public Schools Superintendent Mark Roosevelt is exactly correct in creating a school for disruptive and troubled youths ("Private Firm Hired to Run City School," Jan. 25). We are failing them. These students are special and need more structure and discipline. Behaviors by these children can no longer wait to be addressed. If adults, both within and outside the schools, allow these actions to continue, our society is going to suffer a great deal.

As an employee of the city schools, I believe that we must stand behind Superintendent Roosevelt to resolve this epidemic so that "all" the children can have the opportunity to pursue their education.

TIM PAIL
Brookline

---

Cash waste

Patrick Dowd, candidate for the District 7 council seat, says on his Web site that "I promise to use your tax dollars transparently and efficiently. I will ensure that tax expenditures always benefit the constituent."

Well, this has got to be some kind of record in promise-breaking.

As a school board member, Mr. Dowd succeeded in not only voting to waste our money by giving Lynn Spampinato, ousted as deputy superintendent for instruction, a $213,000 payoff for a do-nothing consulting contract, but doing so without any explanation to the public whatsoever. Under his watchful eye, the school district also failed to properly bill the state for 572 children it educated, costing the taxpayers an additional $220,000 ("City Schools Urged to Nail Down Buyout Costs," Feb. 17).

Talk about empty promises.

CHRISTOPHER CRUZAN
Lawrenceville

---

Independent-minded

Thank you, columnist David Brooks, for finally explaining what it is like to see things from the political RIP (Reasonable in Private) aspect ("Rotting in Public," Feb. 20). To be honest with you, I was very, very afraid that the politicians really and truly believed what they spew to be ultimate truth. I can now breathe a sigh of relief! (And I'm not kidding in the smallest bit.)

As a registered Independent, I find both sides wooing me. When I lived in California, I established and led a march to support our troops in the heart of Hollywood. The Republicans wanted me. When I stood at University of California in Irvine and "defrocked" some maniac who had written a book on war and soldier hatred, I again was wooed by the Republicans. The latest was the Democrats' attempt to woo me because they realized I stand firm in commitment. So I attended a pretty big to-do in Philly.

Well, let me tell you, the Independent Party is looking better and better every day. It is my pleasure to announce that I have a mind of my own, and stick to it.

Consider this a warning, I am not a cow. I am not a sheep. You politicians may neither prod nor shepherd me. And anybody else out there who thinks this way, start a revolt. Think outside the SIPB (Self-Important Pathetic Blowhards). Again, thank you, David Brooks, for easing my mind.

JANE ALTMAN-DWAN
Youngwood

---

Snowboards stink

On Feb. 10 at Seven Springs, a snowboarder collided with a skier, pushing the skier into the base of a snowmaking tower; the skier died of head injuries four days later (News Article, Feb. 16).

All that snowboarders do is cause problems. I am a very avid skier and I have had way too many collisions that were not my fault, but a snowboarder's. I think that there should be areas assigned for snowboarders only because they are out of control.

When I was in Utah in 2005, I skied at Deer Valley, and it was wonderful because they do not allow boarders. It was great. Coincidentally, the next day I was at Park City, and my mother was knocked over at least 10 times due to snowboarders. I clearly remember I was on the Blitzen Slope and I was going down and a snowboarder was just sitting there, and I flipped over him. I almost got into a fight due to this clumsy, lazy person.

It is unreal how uncaring snowboarders are and it is clear the trouble they cause. If I made the rules, snowboarding would be gone. They ruin everything. They ruin slopes and injure people. All snowboards should be used for firewood.

ANDREW EXLER
Fox Chapel

---

Eucharistic distinction

Post-Gazette staff writer Steve Levin is to be commended for his balanced and insightful article regarding the role that Calvary Church and her rector have played in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, and indeed in the broader church during these challenging times ("Opposition Leader," Feb. 25).

May I offer one clarification, however? I have not absented myself routinely from "diocesan eucharists, fellowships and events." Since coming to the diocese in 1996, I have attended every diocesan convention and all clergy conferences but one. (Indeed, on more than one occasion, at the bishop's request, I have served as organist at worship services during those conferences.) I have also made a point to attend all the special meetings called by the bishop at which he has addressed recent developments in the life of the church, and when these meetings have included eucharists, I have participated fully. I have not, however, normally attended the eucharist at diocesan conventions.

The invitation to communion in the Book of Common Prayer asks potential communicants to be "in love and charity with your neighbors." After two days of often acrimonious debate during which Calvary and other "progressive" parishes are reminded that we are considered "outside the fold," my love and charity have, admittedly, been strained at best, adversely affecting my spiritual preparedness to receive the sacrament.

REV. DR. HAROLD T. LEWIS
Rector
Calvary Episcopal Church
Shadyside

---

No serious scientist can defend electronic voting

As a mathematician who earned tenure at a respected Pennsylvania institution of higher learning and who has discussed with many thoughtful, intelligent, world-class scientists and computer scientists the merits and demerits of electronic voting, I am insulted and appalled by Michael Shamos' ad hominem attacks on opponents of electronic voting ("Paper-based Voting Systems Winning Supporters," Feb. 19). Of course, Dr. Shamos defends electronic voting -- he works for the Pennsylvania Department of State.

It is simply a lie to say, as Dr. Shamos does, that "no scientific evidence is being presented" to Congress on this issue. And it is at best hypocritical for him to chide other academics for moving "beyond their impartial roles as academics" when he has positioned himself as an attack dog on behalf of electronic voting.

I have tried to engage Dr. Shamos in reasoned, scientific discussion of the issues on which we disagree, and he always stops the conversation when the crux of the matter is reached. That is the tactic of a politician, not of a world-class scientist.

So why does Dr. Shamos get so much press? I'll bet it's because there are almost no other Ph.D. holders who agree with him about electronic voting. Maybe soon the press will realize that the dangers of electronic voting are like the dangers of global warming -- acknowledged beyond a shadow of a doubt by the scientific establishment.

STEPHANIE FRANK SINGER
Philadelphia