Letters to the Editor: Coverage of arrest missing details about Neuqua Valley teacher; Naperville's election opening door to Chicago-style politics
I am writing to request fair coverage of the arrest of my brother-in-law, William Schaub. ('Neuqua Valley HS teacher charged with having sexual contact with student,' April 4 Naperville Sun)
Your coverage did not include a statement from the Naperville Police Department in which they 'remind the public and news media that a charge is merely an accusation, and a defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.'
He has been accused via an anonymous tip. Your coverage does not include the fact that he has been a teacher for 17 years with no previous incidents and, in fact, was teacher of the year several of those years. It does not include the fact that he is in a long-term healthy marriage and is a father of four children, one who has special needs.
It certainly doesn't cover the fact that he was working while he earned his master's degree so that he could be the best teacher and family provider possible. You seem to have also left out the fact that he is a beloved uncle to 28 nieces and nephews who have enjoyed decades of vacations with him. Your coverage has all the feels of the Salem witch trials.
I worked for 35 years in child protective services and my master's degree included a concentration in the treatment of childhood trauma. I am not trained to spot a guilty or innocent person. I know this man is moral and, in my heart, innocent. Please try to bring some perspective to this coverage.
Joan Pierson, Deltaville, Virginia
Foster and other members of Congress need to impeach Trump
This week, our U.S. Rep. Bill Foster, D-Naperville, did not directly respond to questions about whether he supports impeaching Donald Trump from office. This is upsetting and I am unhappy seeing this lack of foresight and leadership from my district's representative.
As a concerned citizen and voter from Naperville, it's obvious that Trump is leading the country into authoritarianism. His threats not to leave at the end of this term are highly credible. Hyperbole about the danger of his administration, from the economy to education and science to civil rights, has become reality. He and his cabinet are lawless, unaccountable to our justice system and have committed a multitude of crimes. If we don't impeach him now, American democracy may not survive his path of destruction.
I am not willing to risk that.
I am encouraging Congressman Foster to publicly commit to upholding one of their most fundamental democratic roles, removing tyrants from office. Commitment to these basic facts — that Trump is a tyrant and Congress needs to act now to get him out of the White House — will be a major litmus test for any 2026 candidate. I hope we get a good response from them on this critical issue soon.
Marcia Edel, Naperville
Lots of promises being made by our commander in chief
'I will stop the war in Ukraine my first day in office.'
'I will make Canada the 51st state.'
'I will buy Greenland from Denmark if I have to use force.'
'I will make this a great country again.'
'I will give everyone more money than they have ever had.'
There are so many more. Our president has never heard about the pronoun 'we.'
Don't laugh, Democrats. You had a president where the lights were on but there was nobody home. A man who hid from the public with good reason. A man who almost encouraged illegals and pardoned his useless son after stating he would not pardon him.
Let me add one promise of my own: 'Mr. Trump, if you don't stop the tariff war, I will be broke.'
What a wonderful country.
Charles Brown, Naperville
Naperville's election opening door to Chicago-style politics
Now that partisan politics has raised its ugly head in our local elections, what does this mean for our city?
We only need to look to Chicago to see our future.
Mary Derwinski, Naperville
How much is too much when it comes to free speech?
It seems that my letter to the editor (March 19 Naperville Sun) about the David McGrath column titled, 'If there's a revolution against Trump, count me in,' (March 5, Naperville Sun) was misunderstood.
The two responses I have read seem to be willing to argue over words like propaganda, inflammatory, legitimate journalism and Jan 6. (Remember 'marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.' Oops, that got ignored/white-washed/forgotten in the biased media and a compromised Congress.)
But my purpose was to ask why this article was not over the line. We all have the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech but you are not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater. The McGrath column was his vision of what a revolution against President Trump would look like and how he would participate.
This leaves me wondering what would be over the line. What would not be printed? If the column in question resulted in another nut job deciding it was time for a third assassination attempt on President Trump and this column were found in the assassin's possession, who would be in trouble? The author of the column or the paper for printing the column?
Is it wrong to ask for a bit of caution? There is a bill pending in the Minnesota General Assembly that would create a law requiring psychiatric organizations to include Trump-derangement-syndrome on the list of mental illnesses.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Switzerland moves to strengthen its competitiveness after US tariffs
ZURICH (Reuters) -Switzerland is intensifying efforts to strengthen its attractiveness as a business location, its government said on Wednesday, after being hit with some of the highest U.S. tariffs worldwide. Efforts will focus on regulatory relief for Swiss companies, and new rules incurring high costs for businesses could be pushed back, the government said in a statement. U.S. President Donald Trump this month imposed U.S. import tariffs of 39% on Swiss goods, though pharmaceuticals and some other sectors have so far been spared the duties. "(The government) wants to decisively press ahead with its economic policy agenda and is focusing on reducing the regulatory burden on companies," the government said. Geographical diversification and Swiss companies' access to alternative international markets should also be strengthened, the statement said. The new U.S. levies currently affect around 10% of Swiss goods exports, and could have potentially severe consequences for some companies, the government said. Switzerland does not anticipate a recession akin to the global financial crisis or the pandemic, it added. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Vox
21 minutes ago
- Vox
How conservatives help their young thinkers — and why liberals don't
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he covers ideology and challenges to democracy, both at home and abroad. His book on democracy,, was published 0n July 16. You can purchase it here. Attendees look on during Turning Point USA's Culture War event at the Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio, on October 29, 2019. Megan Jelinger/AFP via Getty Images Last week, two young liberals asked for help finding a job in the ideas industry. And I didn't have a great answer. It made sense that they were asking: We were at a conference for liberals, dedicated to building a version of the doctrine that works in the 21st century. They were interested in studying ideas professionally, and I was there to moderate a panel about political philosophy. Yet I found myself struggling to give good advice. Sure, they could try for an internship at a liberal publication or think tank, but those are fiercely competitive and don't pay much. They could apply for a PhD program, but teaching jobs were scarce even before President Donald Trump took a hammer to American academia. What's really missing are programs of a specific kind — ones that help college students and recent grads engage with Big Ideas and connect with Important People. If my young acquaintances were right-wing, I might have told them to apply for National Review's Buckley and Rhodes journalism fellowships — multiyear paid opportunities to write for a national audience straight out of college. For a lesser commitment, they could have tried for the Claremont Institute's Publius Fellowship — a three-week program where you receive $1,500, a $700 travel stipend, free housing, paid meals, and an opportunity to study with some of the most influential (and radical) figures of the Trump era. On the Right The ideas and trends driving the conservative movement, from senior correspondent Zack Beauchamp. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Those are two examples of numerous well-funded programs explicitly designed to usher as many bright young people into the institutional conservative world as possible. If you're an ambitious young college grad, and anywhere on the spectrum from libertarian to hardcore Trumpist, you've got tons of options to get into the ideas game. My young acquaintances really wanted a liberal version of such a thing. But as far as I can tell, it doesn't seem to exist. Where there should be a talent pipeline from universities to liberal public intellectualism, there is a giant sucking sound instead. And, increasingly, it's giving the right a leg up in winning the future. The right's winning formula for training youth It is true, as conservatives have long alleged, that America's intellectual institutions are pretty left-leaning places. They often overstate the case — professors are more likely to be Elizabeth Warren Dems than 'globalize the intifada' socialist revolutionaries — but data confirms that liberals outnumber conservatives in academia and the media by pretty significant margins. This is, of course, not at all new. One of the founding texts of the postwar conservative movement, William F. Buckley's God and Man at Yale, is all about how academia is full of socialists who are chipping away at the eternal truths of capitalism and Christianity. Buckley founded National Review as an antidote to what he saw as the liberal tilt of the mainstream American press. The legacy of Buckley-style thinking is the rise of a conservative ideas industry. A young person nowadays could attend college at right-wing Hillsdale, build their law school life around membership in the Federalist Society, and then get a job writing right-wing papers for the Heritage Foundation — all while getting their news from Fox News and Mark Levin's radio show. As part of these pipeline programs, older right-wingers get to know young up-and-comers as people, and thus develop a personal stake in their success. At the same time, the right also invested in the kinds of 'pipeline' programs our young liberals are desperate for. These aren't designed to replace traditional education or media institutions, but rather to identify young people interested in ideas and expose them to the right-wing alternatives. These work, in large part, by being intellectually exciting. It's not just that you get to go on all-expenses-paid trips with nice meals; it's that you are put in an environment where you're reading and debating classic works of political thought and literature with other people who share those interests. If you're the kind of nerd who wants to debate the finer points of Locke and Hamilton during undergrad summers, you're the kind of nerd who might one day be someone who matters in US politics — and the right's fellowships are there to help make sure you're mattering on their side. The people these young people are meeting are important and famous (well, DC famous). In a 2021 episode of the Know Your Enemy podcast, Nate Hochman — a radical young conservative writer who later staffed both Gov. Ron DeSantis and Sen. Eric Schmitt — talks at length about 'the masterful things the conservative movement institutionally has done in terms of mentorship.' Hochman, who was raised in a liberal household and moved to the right in college, describes how the movement's fellowship programs brought him in direct and meaningful contact with conservatism's leading lights. 'All of a sudden, you're at dinner with people you've looked up to for years, staying up until 1 am drinking wine with them and asking them questions and getting to talk to them. And they're taking you seriously,' Hochman says. As part of these pipeline programs, older right-wingers get to know young up-and-comers as people, and thus develop a personal stake in their success. When you stay up late drinking with someone, talking about shared ideas, you come to care about them in a way you don't if they sent you a cold email. When they come looking for help getting a job writing about conservative ideas, you'll work that much harder to place them in one. And the right has built its institutions to ensure that such positions are available. Right-wing publications and think tanks are much more open to debating big-picture questions — say, what kind of a nation is America? — than their left-wing peers (more on that in a second). Claremont, for example, was founded by students of conservative political philosopher Harry Jaffa, and it shows in the kind of work they put out (even when it strikes me as substantively ridiculous). Liberals are suffering from success There is no parallel culture in American liberalism — a function, in part, of liberalism's longtime intellectual dominance. There wasn't much of a need for liberal donors to create programs to cultivate liberal thought, as people interested could simply go get a PhD or an entry-level reporting job. However, these institutions were not avowedly liberal in character. They styled themselves as politically neutral, focused more on quality research and reporting, than as contributing to a particular ideological cause. This means that while liberals in such fields were in left-leaning environments, many were trained to see themselves primarily as professionals working a craft. So while there are plenty of internships available to young liberals, they're mostly focused on professional training (or coffee-fetching) rather than staying up late swapping ideas with big names. More broadly, the liberal professional approach also produced a kind of intellectual siloing. If you were a young liberal interested in political philosophy, odds are that you end up going to a PhD program and pursuing a career in academia. If you're interested in policy, odds are that you ended up studying a set of applied skills (like law or economics) that prepared you for very specific policy discussions in your area of expertise. But the conservative intellectual model bridges the philosophy-policy gap. It trains young people in the big-picture ideas, like conservative visions of political morality and religion, and teaches them to connect those things to everyday policy discussions. You aren't learning about abstract ideas or concrete policy, but rather learning a comprehensive worldview that treats policy issues as downstream of specific values. You are, in short, learning an ideology. Liberalism has plenty of brilliant theorists who work at a largely abstract level, and policy wonks who work on the most applied issues. But in the middle area of ideology, one bridging the gap between principle and policy, they've basically ceded the field to conservatism. The pipeline problem for young people is a symptom of the movement's blind spot: liberals, as a collective, don't care to cultivate a youth ideological cadre. This might not have been a problem in the past — and maybe even a benefit. Ideological thinking tends to produce rigidity, an unwillingness to adjust one's policy thinking based on new evidence. The right's longtime insistence that tax cuts can reduce deficits, or addiction to proposing military solutions to foreign policy problems, are two examples of curdled ideology. But we're at a moment where liberalism is in a particular kind of crisis: under threat from new ideologies that challenge not specific liberal policy ideas, but the basic premises of a liberal political system. Liberals need a new and compelling vision: one that explains why our ideas are not merely a defense of an unpopular status quo, but a broader politics that can be used to address cardinal problems of the 21st century. At this moment, liberals lack the personnel to articulate such a vision — while the right's radical thinkers, at places like Claremont, seize the field.
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump doesn't have to quit UNESCO again because we never lawfully rejoined
President Trump recently announced that the United States was quitting the United Nations Economic, Social, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for the third time. This is good news – UNESCO has championed gender ideology in education, discriminatory DEI policies, and the entire litany of woke doctrines. It has also worked to erase Jewish history in the Holy Land. But the administration did not need to bother with formally withdrawing from the treaty — from a constitutional perspective, the U.S. hasn't been a member at least since Trump first quit it in 2017. When Biden sought to rejoin the Paris-based agency in 2023, he neglected to seek authorization from Congress. No one made a big deal of it then, but it means that, for domestic law purposes, the U.S. never actually rejoined. This is an important point with implications for numerous international organizations, especially as the administration sets out on an agenda of U.N. reform. Membership in international organizations was not supposed to be a political revolving door. Congress authorizes membership at the outset. After the U.S. leaves, a whole new congressional authorization must be obtained by any president wishing to rejoin. Under the Constitution, the president can only bring the country into a treaty with the 'consent' of two-thirds of the Senate. That is a substantial hurdle, and deliberately so: Commitments to foreign countries can be harder to pull out of than domestic ones. They can become a way of imposing obligations on the country that are then out of reach of the democratic process. In the 20th century, presidents have often relied on the approval of a majority of both Houses instead, a dubious practice but now widely followed. When the U.S. first joined UNESCO in 1946 (and the World Health Organization in 1948), President Truman was acting pursuant a law passed by both Houses authorizing him to do so. But Congress did not reauthorize Biden's reentry to UNESCO. Instead, he treated the 1946 authorization as a lifetime membership, when in fact it was only a one-time pass. If the U.S. quit a treaty that the Senate had ratified — say the NATO treaty — then a decision to rejoin would be subject to a new requirement of advice and consent. Congressional authorization is a stand-in for Senate ratification and should be subject to the same rules. Consider a parallel case: If a president fires a senate-confirmed appointee, and he or a subsequent president wishes to return him to the same post, no one would argue that he could do so simply on the grounds that the Senate had previously confirmed him. Indeed, Andrew Jackson's Attorney General resigned from his position, and was then reappointed to it — only to be rejected by the Senate. As a statutory matter, the 1946 agreement on UNESCO allowed the president to 'accept membership' — not accept, and accept, and accept again. If a congressional authorization is good for infinite rounds of quitting and rejoining, it makes getting out of international agreements harder than getting in – exactly the opposite of what the Framers intended. The argument of perpetual authorization was invented by Jimmy Carter, who purported to rejoin the International Labor Organization in 1980 based on a 1934 authorization. President Bush neglected to seek congressional approval when he rejoined UNESCO in 2002, nearly two decades after Reagan quit. Neither instance attracted much attention, and two modern actions do not prove a constitutional rule. There is a good argument for the Trump administration having withdrawn from UNESCO as if it were a member — to avoid any doubt or subsequent quibbling. But the administration should clarify that it is 'quitting' only out of an excess of caution, and does not see the U.S. as properly joined, which is consistent with its nonpayment of any dues. To avoid abuse by future administrations, Congress should repeal the antiquated authorizations for UNESCO and WHO, which Trump also announced withdrawal from. If a subsequent president wants to rejoin, he should have to sell it to Congress on the organization's existing records, not the hopes and dreams of the 1940s.
