In letters: Cal Poly president owes us an explanation
President Jeffrey Armstrong, why did you refuse to sign onto the public statement signed by 523 of your fellow presidents of universities and colleges across the country condemning 'unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education'?
Opinion
Worried about retribution? You have already had a taste of that, in the form of a $5 million dollar hit in federal grant funding and getting hauled in front of a congressional committee. Do you actually believe that your lack of participation in this effort will protect Cal Poly from future reprisals? Oh, come on. No institution or individual is safe from the wild child in the White House.
You state that the university has no role in determining public policy. The jackboot attempting to squash academic freedom is not public policy. Public policy is set by lawmakers, not one aspiring dictator. At a time when many of us struggle to find ways to be heard, you could have strengthened a voice for freedom and you have chosen to be silent. I, for one, want an explanation.
Ellen M. Morrison
San Luis Obispo
Jeffrey Armstrong, the president of Cal Poly, just lost my respect by refusing to sign the statement against Trump's 'overreach.' Giving in to this administration's pressure to give up independence is a huge mistake and Cal Poly deserves more.
Is it time to find new president for Cal Poly?
Ed Cox
Nipomo
As an astute observer on Nextdoor noted, how many on The Tribune Editorial Board drive through the Morro Bay Highway 41 and Main Street intersection daily? How many have a child attending Morro Bay High? The Tribune and Caltrans, which was originally was against this project, may want to maximize vehicular capacity at this intersection; I want to ensure the life of each high school student at this intersection.
The City Council majority who voted for the roundabout two years ago did not have to use this intersection daily. The present City Council majority does. Kudos to our current leadership for putting lives over money.
Betty Winholt
Morro Bay
I am so disappointed in the Morro Bay City Council majority (Mayor Carla Wixom, Jeff Eckles, Zara Landrum) for directing city staff to stop work on the Highway 41/Main Street project, for which all of the funding would come from CalTrans and SLOCOG.
Every study over 20 years has concluded that a roundabout is the only way to fix this intersection, the most dangerous in Morro Bay (10 vehicle accidents and one pedestrian in the past year alone). Traffic signals have been rejected over and over. Every traffic engineer concluded that signals would back up the traffic onto Highways 1 and 41.
The assertion that a roundabout is unsafe for pedestrians is debunked by experts who study intersection safety all day, every day. What do council members know that dozens of engineers do not? And, the council cut off the work before the design phase of the project, which is required by law to address pedestrian safety.
There is one more step to formalize pulling out of the project, set for May 27, 2025. Contact the council (council@morrobayca.gov) and attend the meeting to show the council that the constituency they serve wants this project to proceed.
Jane Heath
Morro Bay
In regard to the article about putting in a roundabout at the intersection of Main and Highway 41: The Morro Bay City Council decided not to build one because they had concerns about pedestrian safety. Due to the high school being right there and the number of students needing to cross, I totally agree with them. This may be too simplistic, but can't they just build a pedestrian bridge?
Frances Smith
San Luis Obispo
A few years ago, I attended a Shen Yun performance at our Performing Arts Center and regretted it. What was marketed as traditional Chinese dance turned out to be a politically charged production.
More troubling are recent revelations about Shen Yun performers' working conditions. The New York Times reported in August 2024 that dancers in their mid-20s were paid $12,000 or less per year despite performing hundreds of shows. When injured, performers were allegedly discouraged from seeking proper medical care and instead told their 'spiritual state' might be the problem. These young artists appear to face exploitation within the very organization claiming to champion their freedom.
While Shen Yun representatives have denied these allegations, I believe our community should consider whether we want to support performances with such serious ethical concerns. I'm disappointed that our PAC, supported by Cal Poly, the city of San Luis Obispo and community donations, continues to host these performances without addressing these issues. Attending left me uncomfortable with the political messaging woven throughout and learning about the reported treatment of performers has only deepened my concerns.
Debbie Appelbaum
San Luis Obispo
I just read an article that reported that Gov. Gavin Newsom and the liberal politicians in California are upset that Trump's administration hasn't released $40 billion dollars in funds for LA fire relief. Seriously?
These are the leaders who thumb their noses at conservatives and vow to 'Trump proof' California, then expect money from the same people they denigrate. They vote to give free health care (among other handouts) to illegal immigrants, something us hardworking, law-abiding citizens have to pay through the nose for.
They advocate not requiring students to pay back their loans. They spend billions on a train that will serve communities that can't afford to ride it. They have the state in a financial freefall, and then beg from the federal government! What is the money for? How about people insuring and paying for their own losses like rest of us would be required to?
The federal government should help when the fires are active to prevent loss of property and life. In the aftermath, California should be on its own. In other words, these arrogant, irresponsible Democratic politicians enact and support policies that run counter to any form of common sense and when it doesn't work out they blame others. Very childish and embarrassing behavior.
Jody Langford
Templeton
Water problems? Not surprised. At the March, 2025, town hall meeting organized by Supervisor Jimmy Paulding in Oceano, I expressed my concerns about water quality problems in South County after Peter Brown, general manager of the Oceano Community Services District, began the meeting by extolling the quality of our tap water.
A few months earlier, a friend from Williamstown, Massachusetts, had alerted me to reports from the Environmental Working Group (ewg.org).
The comparison between my community, Oceano, and his in Massachusetts was disturbing. Comparing zip codes, our Oceano tap water (93445) had 11 contaminants in very serious quantities and his similar sized community, zip, 01267, had none. The most alarming was arsenic.
I urge more attention to this serious issue.
Bonnie Ernst
Oceano
Regarding the debate about Assemblymember Dawn Addis' ethnic studies bill, AB 1468:
Since the 2023 start of the Israel - Palestine war, our country has been engulfed in an intense and divisive debate about antisemitism. Accusations are being flung around indiscriminately, from Congress, to universities, K-12 schools and elsewhere. Passions must not be allowed to interfere with rational debate.
One fundamental issue missed in most reporting and discussion is an accurate definition of antisemitism. One, used in the House of Representatives' 'Antisemitism Awareness Act,' by the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) and others is the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition. It's been used to equate criticism of the Israeli government's policies and actions with antisemitism.
Another definition is by the JDA (Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism). It states that antisemitism is prejudice against Jews because they're Jews or are directing a covert conspiracy to undermine society. Antisemitism is not: criticism of Zionism or Israeli government policies or actions, nonviolent protest against them, or treating them differently than those of other countries.
The JDA makes clear that the misuse of accusations of antisemitism is a dangerous attack on free speech.
Criticism of U.S. policy and action isn't un-American. Neither is that directed at Israel's antisemitism.
David Broadwater
Atascadero
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This Kansas town doesn't hate immigrants enough. So the Trump administration plots vengeance.
Lawrence and Douglas County appeared on a Department of Homeland Security list of 'sanctuary jurisdictions.' (Clay Wirestone/Kansas Reflector) The Trump administration has put my town — the place my family and I call home — on its hit list for a thought crime. What horrible thing have the people of Lawrence and wider Douglas County done to deserve this fate? Apparently, we don't sufficiently detest immigrants. Put questions of legal status aside. As we all know, it doesn't matter to the hate-bloated buffoons in Washington, D.C., what papers a person has or doesn't have. They will ship you off to a foreign gulag if you're the wrong color or in the wrong place. Because Lawrence had the unmitigated audacity to care about people who look different, it has been threatened with the full wrath of the federal government. It might be shocking, if so little was shocking these days. The Department of Homeland Security posted a list of 500-plus 'sanctuary jurisdictions' on its website May 29, highlighting cities and counties that supposedly run afoul of its anti-immigrant agenda. Three days later, officials took down the page after an outcry from local law enforcement. Thanks to the Internet Archive, you can still browse the list and read the government's inflammatory rhetoric: 'DHS demands that these jurisdictions immediately review and revise their policies to align with Federal immigration laws and renew their obligation to protect American citizens, not dangerous illegal aliens.' There's a lot to unpack there — immigrants commit fewer crimes than those born in the United States, for one thing — but let's press on. The point is that my town and county landed on the list. Let's try to figure out why. Back in 2020, the city passed an ordinance protecting undocumented folks. Two years later, the Kansas Legislature pushed through a bill banning sanctuary cities, and Lawrence subsequently revised its ordinance. You can read the current city code here. What's important to note is that the current language gives wide berth to state and federal law, making clear that the city won't obstruct or hinder federal immigration enforcement. By the same token, that doesn't mean the city has to pursue a brazenly anti-immigration path. Lawrence can and should represent the will of voters, while following applicable law. And those voters, through their elected representatives, chose to make their city a welcoming one. So how did Lawrence end up on the list? Apparently because it didn't spew enough hatred for the White House's liking. A senior DHS official told NPR that 'designation of a sanctuary jurisdiction is based on the evaluation of numerous factors, including self-identification as a sanctuary jurisdiction, noncompliance with federal law enforcement in enforcing immigration laws, restrictions on information sharing, and legal protections for illegal aliens.' Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem pontificated on Fox News: 'Some of the cities have pushed back. They think because they don't have one law or another on the books that they don't qualify, but they do qualify. They are giving sanctuary to criminals.' Note those phrases from the official and Noem: 'Self-identification as a sanctuary jurisdiction.' 'One law or another.' In other words, it doesn't matter what ordinances a city or county has on the books. It doesn't matter what the actual laws may be. It apparently depends on what a city calls itself and how the Trump administration feels about it. No city or county sets out to break the law. They have attorneys on staff or retainer to make sure they don't break myriad legal restrictions. Lawrence followed the law in enacting its original ordinance, and when the law changed, officials followed along. But few want to step out and say such things publicly, given that federal officials have tremendous resources behind them. They could crush any city or county if they wished, through legal bills alone. Thankfully, as mentioned above, sheriffs across the nation pushed back. 'This list was created without any input, criteria of compliance, or a mechanism for how to object to the designation,' said National Sheriffs' Association president Sheriff Kieran Donahue. 'Sheriffs nationwide have no way to know what they must do or not do to avoid this arbitrary label. This decision by DHS could create a vacuum of trust that may take years to overcome.' Douglas County Sheriff Jay Armbrister was similarly outspoken in comments to the Lawrence Journal-World: 'We feel like the goalposts have been moved on us, and this is now merely a subjective process where one person gets to decide our status on this list based on their opinion.' Thanks to the U.S. Constitution and its First Amendment, we are not required to love, like or even respect our government. We are not required to voice support of its goals. We are not required to say anything that we don't want to say about immigration, immigrants or ICE. Republicans understood that full well when Presidents Joe Biden and Barack Obama were in office. Both faced torrents of criticism on this very subject. Those presidents took the abuse. It was, and is, part of the job. Now President Donald Trump and his anti-immigration minions have to deal with the fact that a different segment of the public vehemently disagrees with their immigration policies. That's OK. That's protected expression. Within the bounds of law, we are also free to define our towns, cities and counties however we want. Accusing local governments of thought crimes desecrates and defames our Constitution. Clay Wirestone is Kansas Reflector opinion editor. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NATO chief Rutte calls for 400% increase in the alliance's air and missile defense
LONDON (AP) — NATO members need to increase their air and missile defenses by 400% to counter the threat from Russia, the head of the military alliance plans to say on Monday. Secretary-General Mark Rutte will say during a visit to London that NATO must take a 'quantum leap in our collective defense' to face growing instability and threats, according to extracts released by NATO before Rutte's speech. Rutte is due to meet U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer at 10 Downing St. ahead of a NATO summit in the Netherlands where the 32-nation alliance is likely to commit to a big hike in military spending. Like other NATO members, the U.K. has been reassessing its defense spending since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Starmer has pledged to increase British defense spending to 2.5% of gross domestic product by 2027 and to 3% by 2034. Rutte has proposed a target of 3.5% of economic output on military spending and another 1.5% on 'defense-related expenditure' such as roads, bridges, airfields and sea ports. He said last week he is confident the alliance will agree to the target at its summit in The Hague on June 24-25. At the moment, 22 of the 32 member countries meet or exceed NATO's current 2% target. The new target would meet a demand by President Donald Trump that member states spend 5% of gross domestic product on defense. Trump has long questioned the value of NATO and complained that the U.S. provides security to European countries that don't contribute enough. Rutte plans to say in a speech at the Chatham House think tank in London that NATO needs thousands more armored vehicles and millions more artillery shells, as well as a 400% increase in air and missile defense. 'We see in Ukraine how Russia delivers terror from above, so we will strengthen the shield that protects our skies,' he plans to say. 'Wishful thinking will not keep us safe. We cannot dream away the danger. Hope is not a strategy. So NATO has to become a stronger, fairer and more lethal alliance.' European NATO members, led by the U.K. and France, have scrambled to coordinate their defense posture as Trump transforms American foreign policy, seemingly sidelining Europe as he looks to end the war in Ukraine. Last week the U.K. government said it would build new nuclear-powered attack submarines, prepare its army to fight a war in Europe and become 'a battle-ready, armor-clad nation.' The plans represent the most sweeping changes to British defenses since the collapse of the Soviet Union more than three decades ago.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Iran says to submit own nuclear proposal to US soon
Iran said Monday it will soon present a counter-proposal on a nuclear deal with the United States, after it had described Washington's offer as containing "ambiguities". Tehran and Washington have held five rounds of talks since April to thrash out a new nuclear accord to replace the deal with major powers that US President Donald Trump abandoned during his first term in 2018. The longtime foes have been locked in a diplomatic standoff over Iran's uranium enrichment, with Tehran defending it as a "non-negotiable" right and Washington describing it as a "red line". On May 31, after the fifth round talks, Iran said it had received "elements" of a US proposal, with Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi saying later the text contained "ambiguities". Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei criticised the US proposal as "lacking elements" reflective of the previous rounds of negotiations, without providing further details. "We will soon submit our own proposed plan to the other side through (mediator) Oman once it is finalised," Baqaei told a weekly press briefing. "It is a proposal that is reasonable, logical, and balanced, and we strongly recommend that the American side value this opportunity." Iran's parliament speaker has said the US proposal failed to include the lifting of sanctions -- a key demand for Tehran, which has been reeling under their weight for years. - 'Strategic mistake' - Trump, who has revived his "maximum pressure" campaign of sanctions on Iran since taking office in January, has repeatedly said it will not be allowed any uranium enrichment under a potential deal. On Wednesday, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the US offer was "100 percent against" notions of independence and self-reliance. He insisted that uranium enrichment was "key" to Iran's nuclear programme and that the US "cannot have a say" on the issue. Iran currently enriches uranium to 60 percent, far above the 3.67-percent limit set in the 2015 deal and close though still short of the 90 percent needed for a nuclear warhead. Western countries, including the United States, have long accused Iran of seeking to acquire atomic weapons, while Iran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes The United Nations nuclear watchdog will convene a Board of Governors meeting from June 9-13 in Vienna to discuss Iran's nuclear activities. The meeting comes after the International Atomic Energy Agency released a report criticising "less than satisfactory" cooperation from Tehran, particularly in explaining past cases of nuclear material found at undeclared sites. Iran has criticised the IAEA report as unbalanced, saying it relied on "forged documents" provided by its arch foe Israel. Britain, France and Germany, the three European countries who were party to the 2015 deal, are currently weighing whether to trigger the sanctions "snapback" mechanism in the accord. The mechanism would reinstate UN sanctions in response to Iranian non-compliance -- an option that expires in October. On Friday, Araghchi warned European powers against backing a draft resolution at the IAEA accusing Tehran of non-compliance, calling it a "strategic mistake". On Monday, Baqaei said Iran has "prepared and formulated a series of steps and measures" if the resolution passed. "Without a doubt, the response to confrontation will not be more cooperation," he added. rkh-mz/ysm
