Don’t worship individuals

I’m writing to commend Chris Boyd, the principal of Bend’s new High School, who decided to politely decline to name our new high school after local WWII hero Bob Maxwell. I specifically wanted to provide a counter opinion to Jeff Taylor’s Feb. 22 scathing guest column on the topic.

I’ve known Chris Boyd for 5 years from his time leading Pacific Crest Middle School and interacted with him directly. He is the best administrator I have ever met and is making a great decision for Central Oregon, the Northwest and the U.S. I’m proud of how he and the District’s leadership balance the interests and needs of our politically diverse community and this is a good call.

Moving away from individual hero worship is an important break from how we have related to our history from the local to national levels. Hero worship is about people who represented and embodied our ideals. We need to focus on the values, not the people because that is more inclusive and important than any individual. It’s the shared values that make a community, not the best individuals who embodied them.

It’s a mistake for our publicly shared resources to worship past individuals, be they Civil War statues like General Sherman in New York City or General Lee in Charlottesville, VA or a high school in Central Oregon.

Chris Boyd is correct. This decision will resonate for decades.

— Lloyd Fassett, Bend

A special deal

Appalled is what I am that the City even considered selling a valuable downtown property without a thorough open bidding process.

I refer of course to the City Council authorizing the City Manager to negotiate the sale of city land to the Environmental Center. I realize the Environmental Center is a favorite nonprofit of the city staff, but still…

This parcel adjoins other city property in a desirable commercial area that may offer great future opportunity for development or trade. City property should be sold using the same standard as vacating a city street — dispose of only it if there is no potential long term use for it.

Regardless of the merits of the Environmental Center, sale of any city land should be offered openly to all, we all have shared ownership. Actually as a former councilor and as a real estate investor, I believe this piece should not be sold at all because it has long term potential, especially as part of a larger parcel.

Would the city consider selling it to me or another investor or group? No, of course not. It is a special friendly deal only available to a particularly favored group. What favored organization will get the next special deal? This doesn’t pass the smell test.

— Allan Bruckner, Bend

Vet use of vetting

I wish to extend my compliments to Rick Seibert of Bend for writing the letter to the editor (Feb. 20) that I had composed in my own mind regarding the “vetting” of writers to the Bulletin. I also read the economists’ piece twice, and still was not able to understand just what their point was or why they were qualified to authoritatively write on transportation issues in Bend.

The Bulletin editorial board has twice now used the term “vetted”: Once in their defense of their decision to only publish pro-climate change pieces and again in their new “Voices” column header. Unfortunately, the Bulletin neglects to tell us who is doing the vetting, and why that individual is qualified to determine who is smart about climate change and who is not, and who is “steeped in knowledge” of a subject and who is not. The Bulletin needs to vet the “vetter”, and perhaps assign the vetting to a better “vetter”.

I suggest the Bulletin stop using the term “vetted” unless they identify the “vetter” and explain why that individual is qualified to vet the subject at hand. Also, please stop telling us the Voices writers are “steeped in knowledge” merely because they have advanced degrees in some field. Historical work in the field being written about and some level of success in applying the science of the field would be a better measure to use when you vet someone.

— Dennis Dietrich, Bend

Why is Maxwell alienating?

Jeff Taylor’s guest column piece from Feb. 22 about the Bend-La Pine school board not naming the new high school for Congressional Medal of Honor winner Bob Maxwell was spot on. It’s the policy of the district not to name a school for a person unless said individual has been deceased for five years. The school board could have voted to make an exception to this rule in the case of naming the school for Mr. Maxwell. Instead, the reason given by principal Chris Boyd of not wanting to alienate anyone was right in line with the new movement of being politically correct. How could naming the school for Bob Maxwell alienate anybody?

I wonder if the board members realize just how significant the Congressional Medal of Honor is. Here’s a young soldier having to make a split-second decision. He doesn’t have time to think about putting the value of his life first. Rather, he instinctively reacts to the situation regarding the lives of his buddies. Fortunately, his and his compatriots’ lives are spared. Then, Bob Maxwell comes home and contributes to society by becoming a teacher. This man was an exemplary person.

The board chose the name Vista; the reason being it is a word in both English and Spanish. That way, nobody is offended. But what do we do about the students from Asian countries or those from the Middle East or Europe?

When the board members come up for re-election, I will not vote for them. I’m going to vote for those persons who can set aside political correctness and do the right thing.

— John Sabo, Bend

Do you have a point you’d like to make or an issue you feel strongly about? Submit a letter to the editor.