Readers Respond --

Newport-Mesa Unified School Board member Wendy Leece was totally

correct in saying that “parents want a limit to the amount of sex and

violence in a book” (“Q&A;: Talk of the town,” Feb. 4).

In fact, it is my understanding that each teacher is required to get a

teenager’s parental consent before using the disputed books as assigned

reading.

One of my concerns with book banning is that, too often, cruel reigns

of terror have started with book-burning frenzies. Another difficult

question is: How are we going to protect these teenagers once they depart

for college or join the work force a year or two from now?

I have never met Leece and hold no personal enmity toward her. For all

we know, she could be the nicest person in the world trying to do the

best for the school district and her own children.

I also admire her strength in holding on to her beliefs. It is when

these beliefs start to cross a neighbor’s threshold that it becomes a

concern to us. In this controversy, we seem to have forgotten about the

basic purpose of our schools -- providing our children an adequate

education. In this respect, I totally agree with Leece that we do need

more parental involvement to make it work.

However, she concludes her interview by stating that “It’s usually

pretty clear to me [what she should do]”. When held by someone in a

position of power, that may be potentially dangerous to those who do not

subscribe to the same belief system.

History has never treated any epoch of book-burning or book-banning

well. Let’s hope that our school system will not earn this footnote of

infamy in any future text of history.

JOHN T. CHIU

Newport Beach

It is regrettable that when Wendy Leece offered an unpopular minority

opinion concerning the content of selected student reading materials, her

comments were met with disparaging condescension.

In a tolerant community, one hopes that all minority views could be

expressed without the pejorative overreaction of the majority. Surely all

of us hold some views that place us at odds with the majority opinion.

And surely all of us hope that our individual views, regardless of how

unpopular they may be, would be heard and would become part of the public

discourse --views of individuals fomenting hatred and violence withheld.

Why is it that the unpopular views held by certain minority groups are

better tolerated than the unpopular views expressed by Leece, a

conservative Christian?

Do we believe that the unpopular views of a minority Christian are

inherently without value and unworthy of discussion? Do we really believe

that the evaluation of reading lists by involved parents and elected

school board officials is anathema to the goals of public education?

Let us not overreact. Our public schools are strong enough to allow

dissenting voices to be heard.

It’s time to listen.

DARYL CHINN

Newport Beach

As a school board member in one of the best districts in California,

Wendy Leece must realize that our high school students are much smarter

and savvy than she is giving them credit for.

MAXINE M. MACHA

Costa Mesa

I was so pleased to read Steve Smith’s article (“Trustee Leece’s

actions far from being censorship,” Jan. 27). I support what he has to

say regarding our needing to protect our children from all that’s out

there in society. I agreed 100% with everything he said.

I, then, was so discouraged when reading the letters that were

published in the Daily Pilot. I don’t know if they were reflective

percentage-wise of the kind of response that you received, but I noticed

that only one out of the six or eight letters was in support of Leece.

It concerns me that so many people would support the idea that kids

under 18 years of age should be exposed to this kind of thing. I think

they need to be exposed to the ideals, not all of the tragedies, in the

world, and our schools should be a safe haven for them. I give my support

to Leece and to Smith for his article.

KATHY SHORE

Newport Beach

Seems to me that school board member Wendy Leece’s reasoning for

banning (removing) “Of Love and Shadows” and “Snow Falling on Cedars”

from the high school curriculum would also require banning the Bible in

our high schools.

ISABELLE PRESCOTT

Costa Mesa

School board trustees in many places across our nation have been

elected to their positions in a campaign by religious activists to

further their agenda in our public schools. Other trustees base their

proposals for our young on how society and social morals were when they

where growing up.

The reality is society, culture and what is deemed socially acceptable

has changed over the years. It has always been like this and always will.

Passion and sex are on daytime television and on our streets.

They are not bad things, and our children are exposed to them daily in

different ways. It is the responsibility of the parents at home to

provide their children the lessons, through nurturing and open

discussion, on how to deal with these issues in a responsible manner. The

banning of books is not the answer.

PAUL JAMES BALDWIN

Newport Beach