A24 EZ RE THE WASHINGTON POST.FRIDAY, MAY 27 , 2022LETTERS TO THE EDITOR[email protected]MICHAEL DE ADDERABCDEFREDERICK J. RYAN JR.
Publisher and Chief Executive OfficerNEWS
SALLY BUZBEE....................................Executive Editor
CAMERON BARR.....................Senior Managing Editor
KAT DOWNS MULDER.......Chief Product Officer & ME
STEVEN GINSBERG............................Managing Editor
KRISSAH THOMPSON.........................Managing EditorSHARIF DURHAMS.................Deputy Managing Editor
MONICA NORTON..................Deputy Managing Editor
LIZ SEYMOUR.........................Deputy Managing Editor
MARK W. SMITH.....................Deputy Managing Editor
SCOTT VANCE.........................Deputy Managing Editor
BARBARA VOBEJDA...............Deputy Managing EditorEDITORIAL AND OPINIONS
RUTH MARCUS................Deputy Editorial Page Editor
KAREN TUMULTY.............Deputy Editorial Page Editor
JO-ANN ARMAO............Associate Editorial Page EditorOFFICERS
JAMES W. COLEY JR.........................................Production
L. WAYNE CONNELL............................Human Resources
KATE M. DAVEY.....................................Revenue Strategy
ELIZABETH H. DIAZ...Audience Development & Insights
GREGG J. FERNANDES.........Customer Care & Logistics
SHANI GEORGE......................................Communications
STEPHEN P. GIBSON.....................Finance & Operations
KRISTINE CORATTI KELLY....Communications & Events
JOHN B. KENNEDY...................General Counsel & LaborMIKI TOLIVER KING..................................................Arc XP
SHAILESH PRAKASH..Digital Product Dev./Engineering
MICHAEL A. RIBERO....................................Subscriptions
JOY ROBINS..........................................................RevenueThe Washington Post
1301 K St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071
(202) 334-6000ABCDEAN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPEREDITORIALSWARS END. Many, if not most,
end with negotiation. That
might be what happens with
the war Russia launched
against Ukraine on Feb. 24 , too, though
one former Moscow regime member
warns against urging Ukraine to negoti-
ate while President Vladimir Putin is still
bent on more conquest. “You just can’t
make peace now,” Boris Bondarev, who
recently resigned from his mid-level Rus-
sian Foreign Ministry post to protest the
war, said in an interview with Puck. “If
you d o, it will be seen as a Russian victory.”
That would just encourage the Putin
regime to exploit a cease-fire to rearm,
then resume the war, Mr. Bondarev ar-
gued: “Only a total and clear d efeat that is
obvious to everyone will teach them.”
Mr. Bondarev makes a compelling
point. It would be a disaster — both
moral and strategic — if Mr. Putin were
invited to talks before his major war
objectives had been thwarted. Clear
enough to a junior practitioner of inter-
national affairs, this wisdom seems to
escape ostensibly more seasoned figures.
Former U. S. secretary of state HenryA. Kissinger said at the World Economic
Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that West-
ern governments should push Ukraine
into talks with Mr. Putin in the next
60 days, as well as support permanent
Ukrainian territorial concessions, lest
the conflict turn into a destabilizing
“new war against Russia itself.” Similar
thinking seems to be at work in Italy and
Hungary, which are reportedly urging
the European Union to advocate a cease-
fire and peace talks at its summit next
week. Our colleagues on the New York
Times editorial board have called on
President Biden to counsel Kyiv not to
“chase after an illusory ‘win.’ ”
This remains a minority view within
the Western alliance, a nd it should be. As
European Commission President Ursula
von der Leyen made clear at Davos:
“Ukraine must win this war, and Putin’s
aggression must be a strategic failure.” To
be sure, the war is terribly costly — for
the whole world. It must end as soon as
reasonably possible. Ukrainian Presi-
dent Volodymyr Zelensky has indicated
that he will talk with Mr. Putin — as soon
as Russia withdraws to the prewar lines,under which it held Crimea and a swath
of additional territory. Mr. Zelensky also
insists, appropriately, that a false peace
would be worse than useless and that
premature talk of a settlement must not
undercut Ukraine’s military efforts.
As Mr. Kissinger and others rightly
note, Moscow has ample means to esca-
late the war — not least by using nuclear
weapons. Yet what’s remarkable about
the past three months of war is how little
appetite Mr. Putin has actually shown for
confrontation with the West. NATO’s red
lines, public and private, seem to be
holding. Nor does Mr. Putin show signs
of interest in a deal such as the one
Mr. Kissinger seems to assume he would
accept, as opposed to the outright seizure
of all Ukraine that Mr. Putin has repeat-
edly openly pursued.
Perhaps Ukraine’s counteroffensive
will fail, and the military situation will
eventually reach such an impasse that a
negotiated settlement becomes inevi-
table. For now, though, the best way for
Ukraine’s friends to help is to accelerate
shipments of vital weaponry — and stop
negotiating with themselves.Not the time for a dealPremature negotiations would be a victory for M r. Putin.E
VEN BEFORE a man at a home-
less encampment was fatally shot
on Monday, there had been prob-
lems at the small tent city located
near a busy thoroughfare in downtown
D.C. Police had responded to numerous
calls about drugs, thefts, vandalism and
threatening behavior. Nearby residents
complained about the blighted condi-
tions and what they saw as a growing
public safety hazard. Within hours of
Monday’s events — police are still sorting
out exactly what happened — officials
cleared out the encampment, removing
tents, a portable toilet and a shopping
cart, and offering housing to the people
who had stayed there.
Should the city have acted sooner?
Why did someone have to die before
action was taken? The situation at the
Thomas Circle encampment brings into
focus the fraught questions D.C. — and
other American cities — faces in trying to
deal with a homeless population that has
ended up living in tents on city streets.
As o f April, there were 97 encampment
sites across D.C. with at least one tent;255 people were estimated to be connect-
ed to the sites. The rise of encampments
— some 40 percent from 2020 to 2021 —
has been tied to the pandemic and the
advice from the Centers for Disease Con-
trol and Prevention that cities not crack
down on them because of the extraordi-
nary challenges posed by the coronavirus.
So even though D.C. this year reported the
lowest number of people living on the
street or in a shelter in 17 y ears, according
to the annual point-in-time count, the
sites gave heightened visibility to the
issue of people without shelter.
Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) last year
initiated a pilot program aimed at clear-
ing out the encampments that have
sprouted across the city. F our were select-
ed for clearance, based on size, health
and safety risk, and competing use of
public spaces. People camped out at t hem
were given notice, offered housing op-
tions in the way of shelter, hotels or
vouchers for apartments, plus wrap-
around services to deal with other issues
such as drug dependency or mental ill-
ness. There was pushback and criticism.Some advocates said the city wasn’t d oing
enough and called for those living in
encampments to stand their ground.
Some members of the D.C. Council, in-
cluding two members challenging
Ms. Bowser in next month’s Democratic
primary, s ought to block implementation
of the effort. The administration was not
deterred. To b e sure, there were missteps,
including the clumsy use of a bulldozer to
clear a site, but the program had the
support of a majority of D.C. residents.
And, more importantly, officials report
there has been some promising success in
getting residents of the encampments
into alternative housing.
A report on the pilot program is now in
the works. That s hould help guide D.C. in
deciding w hether adjustments in the pro-
gram are needed and what steps to take
regarding the remaining encampments.
What should be clear is that conditions
often associated with these encamp-
ments — rodent infestations, fetid sur-
roundings, hazardous housing — are un-
acceptable. They d on’t h elp the homeless,
and they should h ave no place in America.Unacceptable treatmentEncampments are not the way to help D.C.'s unhoused population.WHEN POLICE in Littleton,
Colo., responded to reports of
gunfire at Columbine High
School in 1999, they did what
they had been trained to do: set up a
perimeter, summon specially trained
SWAT and hostage teams, wait for de-
mands and allow no one, including first
responders, into the building. Hours
passed before the building was secured,
authorities realized the shooters had
killed themselves, and the wounded re-
ceived medical attention. Thirteen people
— 12 students and a teacher — had been
slaughtered.
Columbine resulted in fundamental
changes in how law enforcement re-
sponds to mass shootings. The Colum-
bine Review Commission formed by then-
Gov. Bill Owens recommended in 2001
that “law enforcement policy and train-
ing should emphasize that the highest
priority of law enforcement officers, after
arriving at the scene of a crisis, is to stop
any ongoing assault.” Active-shooter pro-
grams in which officers were trained to
immediately target the gunman or gun-
men became standard police protocol.
So why did it take 40 minutes to an
hour before law enforcement authorities
in Uvalde, Tex., stormed an elementary
school classroom to stop a gunman who
had gone on a shooting r ampage? I t is j ust
one of the questions that parents whose
children w ere killed, wounded or trauma-
tized are asking — and it is one that
authorities would do well to answer with
clarity and urgency.
Since Tuesday’s mass shooting at R obb
Elementary School, in which 19 children
and two teachers were murdered, con-
flicting and confusing narratives have
emerged. After initial accounts that the
gunman had been confronted by a school
resource officer and suggestions that
there was an exchange of gunfire, a Texas
law enforcement officer said on Thurs-
day that the gunman entered the school“unobstructed” through a door that was
apparently unlocked. Victor Escalon, a
regional director at the Texas Depart-
ment of Public Safety, said that Salvador
Rolando Ramos, the alleged gunman
who was killed when a Border Patrol
tactical team burst into the room where
he had been barricaded, did not initially
encounter any law enforcement officers.
Why the discrepancy?
Equally troubling is a harrowing video
posted to a parent’s Facebook account
that shows frantic family members on
Tuesday begging police to take action.
“Why let the children die? There’s shoot-
ing in there,” one woman pleaded.
“They’re little kids, they don’t know how
to defend themselves.... Six-year-old kids
in there, they don’t know how to defend
themselves from a shooter!” a man cried.Parents talked about r ushing t he building
themselves, as they said police were just
standing around. One parent was tackled
to the ground. A national school safety
expert t old P ost reporters that any delay in
going i nside will be hard to explain.
Make no mistake: The person respon-
sible for the murder of these little chil-
dren and brave teachers is the deranged
18 -year-old who fired an AR-style rifle.
But it is important to know whether
errors were made that might have cost
some lives. What lessons can be learned
that might save lives in the future if — as
sadly seems inevitable — there are more
mass shootings? There needs to be a full
public accounting. Just as the governor
in Colorado once ordered a rigorous re-
view of the events surrounding Colum-
bine, so should Texas Gov. G reg Abbott.Parents deserve answersThere are many questions about how police responded to the Texas school shooting.SARAH L. VOISIN/THE WASHINGTON POST
R obb Elementary School in Uvalde, Tex., on Thursday.Heather Turgeon and Julie Wright’s
May 22 Sunday Opinion essay on the
importance of adequate sleep to teen
mental health, “We’re ignoring a major
culprit behind the teen mental health
crisis,” missed a crucial point. Yes, smart-
phone use, early school start times and
homework demands are certainly “emi-
nently fixable” factors contributing to
teens’ loss of sleep. However, for many of
my high school students, the bigger cul-
prit is late-night, sometimes overnight,
jobs.
Many teenagers in my classroom work
until midnight at r estaurants or until even
later at c onstruction s ites. T hey sleep f or a
few hours in the early morning before
finding their way to class. One 16 -year-old
recently apologized for his lethargy, ex-
plaining that he had worked until 5 a.m.
and had slept for only a few hours before
coming to class. He assured me he would
nap after school before heading out to
work again at 8 t hat night.
For these teenagers, the priority of a
high school education a nd the n ecessity of
employment combine to create a sleep
loss that is n ot so “eminently fixable” after
all.
Hillary Nebhut, Falls ChurchSleepy in schoolColbert I. King’s insightful and heart-
felt May 21 op-ed, “White supremacy is
doing quite well for itself,” should help
undermine the blind denials that sys-
temic racism, which is b ased upon white
supremacy, is even a thing. Mr. King
courageously called out the insufficien-
cy of sincerely believed assurances, such
as those of President Biden in Buffalo,
that “in America evil will not win...
Hate will not prevail. White supremacy
will n ot have the last word.” Really? Why
not?
As Mr. King pointed out, white su-
premacy is still having an awful lot to
say. Just as it has throughout our h istory.
Unfortunately, efforts to honestly admit
to and remove this destructive affliction
from our body politic are hampered by
the reticence of well-intentioned White
Americans who refuse to own up to
white supremacy and its pernicious
effects. The perfectly apt conclusion of
Mr. King’s article is worth repeating:
“Own up and get on it. Or keep sending
ambulances, and building makeshift
memorials.”
Norman E. D’Amours, ArlingtonStill an awful lot to sayThe other is that Miami floods fre-
quently because o f climate change, which
many Republicans play down. Sooner or
later, the bill will come due for the enor-
mous costs of flood abatement in the face
of ever-increasing major hurricanes.
From where w ill the funds c ome t o pay for
this abatement? New York City? Mexico?
And will insurance cover the flood dam-
age in the meantime? (See Lizette Alvar-
ez’s May 22 op-ed, “Too busy with culture
wars, F lorida missed a n actual crisis.”)
Mr. Will is a lifelong Cubs fan, which
perhaps has e nabled h im to hope, against
all odds, that if you have faith, eventually
one c an see a good outcome. For the Cubs,
it took only 108 y ears. I f our r epublic lasts
that much longer, he might yet be right.
Meanwhile, I fear for our country.
Drew E. Permut, BethesdaIt c ould not be any clearer what George
F. Will was saying in his May 22 op-ed,
“From the mayor’s office to the White
House?”: “National Democrats’ demogra-
phy-is-destiny theory reflects the mentali-
ty of a party soggy with the tribalism of
identity politics: The ‘browning of A meri-
ca’ will supposedly guarantee Democrats’
dominance.” Though Democrats do point
out the benefits of racial and cultural
diversity, they have never espoused or
even suggested s uch a t heory or mentality.
This seems to be a fearful projection of
racial d iversity. I t is also a s clear an expres-
sion of replacement theory as any that
might h ave come from Tucker Carlson.
Martin Wulfe, Silver SpringGeorge F. Will’s May 22 op-ed on the
sunny prospects of Miami’s Republican
mayor typified all that is hopeful and
lamentable about h is worldview.
Miami Mayor Francis Suarez might be
an admirable man, and he oversees a
booming, entrepreneurial, low-tax oasis.
However, Mr. Will failed to address two
large problems. One is that Mr. Suarez
belongs to a party that is now so corrupt
and unprincipled that even formerly
“good politicians” such as Rep. Elise Ste-
fanik (R-N.Y.) readily abandon their prin-
ciples to follow antidemocratic propa-
ganda whose only allegiance is to power.
(See Dana Milbank’s May 22 Sunday Opin-
ion column, “How a ‘bright light’ chose t o
take a darker path.”) Mr. Will c orrectly and
honorably left the Republican Party pre-
cisely for t his reason. If Mr. Suarez were to
become the Republican standard-bearer,
would he buck this trend?Replacement theory restatedIn his May 20 letter, “Democracy will
survive,” Joel Leson quoted Abraham
Lincoln as saying “the true [cure] is in the
next election.” Both Mr. Leson and Lin-
coln are assuming there will always be a
next election, but both are/were unaware
of what happened in 1930 s Germany,
where there were no more elections in
that democracy after the wrong person
was made chancellor.
Thomas R. McBirney, ColumbiaA warning from GermanyRegarding the May 2 1 Metro article
“Books targeted, beyond schools”:
Republican activists have decided to
tell a private company that t wo particular
books cannot be sold to teens because t he
books are “hypersexual and h ave extreme
vulgar and sexual content.” Apparently,
they get to decide this for everyone be-
cause o f, w hat, fatherhood?
Nothing about this is rational. Why
cancel just these two books? Why not
others? Why not stop Barnes & Noble
from selling “Lolita”? “Ulysses”? “The
Scarlet Letter”? “Myra Breckinridge”?
Shakespeare? Sophocles? Or is it instead
something about the two particular
books? Do they fear their offspring seeing
these on a shelf will turn them transgen-
der? Books can be powerful, to be sure, b ut
can they change one’s gender i dentity?
I think it’s something else. These two
books are clearly a imed at t he young adult
market. A straight child reading these
might become empathetic to people who
don’t conform to “Ozzie and Harriet” life-
styles. Though b ooks can’t c hange sexuali-
ty, books can change minds. That is — I
think — what is driving the efforts to
cancel these two books. It’s the ideas in
them. These conservative Republicans
fear that the books will create children
who are more tolerant. And that i s threat-
ening to their political views. It’s not the
alleged obscenity in the books; it’s the
tolerant ideas they want to squash. And
that is u nconstitutional.
Ken Schellenberg, ArlingtonThe May 21 Metro article “Books target-
ed, beyond schools” showed a real irony
among conservative lawmakers and their
supporters. They are making every effort
to control what children are being taught
in the classroom, something educators
are (or should be) in charge of, and now
are making efforts to constrain book-
stores in what they allow young people to
purchase.
It s eems to me that t his responsibility i s
totally that of parents who have faith and
confidence that their children can (and
will) talk with them about any issue they
might have about racism, sexuality or
even politics.
Greg Versen, Harrisonburg, Va.What’s behind book bans?