We welcome your comments. Send them to email@example.com, or post them on our website, rochestercitynewspaper.com, our Facebook page, or our Twitter feed, @roccitynews. Comments of fewer than 350 words have a greater chance of being published, and we do edit selections for publication in print. We don't publish comments sent to other media.
Charters create a separate, unequal system
Charter schools are tremendously popular with parents who want the best for their children and don't understand how existing schools, or even life in a democracy, works.
In a democracy, if we have a system that isn't working as it should, we get together to fix it, making it work for all Americans. But charter school parents want to separate and insulate their children from the general population of residents in their town or city.
This has led to having two separate school systems, with only one of the systems being for "the very poorest children, and with the children with the greatest educational challenges, or with disabilities, or who don't speak English or live in homes that lack support for education (Urban Journal, December 7)."
And having charter schools definitely does lead to having two separate and unequal educational systems, both supported by taxpayers' dollars. And the issue of having unequal systems supported by taxpayers has been through many courts, each one seeming to approve those schools existence and keeping parents happy.
But isn't this a parallel to the school systems that existed years ago, only those systems were separated by race? Wasn't this addressed in 1953 with Brown vs. Board of Education? Do those of us who think the current charter school system is unfair have to wait for a lawsuit addressing this inequality and eliminating it?
I definitely believe that parents should have a choice where to send their children to school, and thus charter schools should exist, but funding charter schools with public tax dollars insures a separate and unequal system.
It would be good if Making America Great Again included all Americans equally.
Restraining orders need reform, too
Regarding the "Bail fail" cover story (News, November 23): When my dad was a City Court judge in the 1980's, orders of protection were up to the judges to decide. But about 20 years ago, legislation passed that made these documents practically automatic.
What lawmakers didn't take into account was that people would falsely report incidents to the police due to their petty jealousies and desire for power. Thus, arrests are being made because of citizens playing the justice system: neighbor vs. neighbor, brother vs sister, husband vs. wife – all getting vengeance on one another and it is perfectly legal.
I can't tell you how many people I have seen rot in jail who didn't deserve it because of this order of protection fiasco. The courts know it is wrong but go along with it because they have become a money-making business.
Truthfully, restraining orders are rarely necessary because we all realize that if people have made up their mind to do something, no piece of paper is going to stop them.
Let's just admit that we made a mistake allowing orders of protection to become so prevalent. It is best to have both parties appear in front of the judge and have him or her decide if the complaint is valid.