Letters to the Editor | Nov. 25, 2024

I am one of those rare and hapless birds known as a Delaware Republican. Conservative, even. I did not vote for Sarah McBride to be Delaware’s lone member of the House, nor do I subscribe to the extreme woke agenda. Nonetheless, I am embarrassed by some of my fellow Republicans’ mean-spiritedness in singling out McBride — as the sole transgender member of Congress — with new rules dictating which bathrooms she may or may not use. I do not agree with her on policy matters, but I do not believe she poses a danger to anyone. I suspect those promoting the new rule do not actually believe so, either. We should expect more civility and graciousness from our elected representatives, who must work together for the public good. Washington could learn something from the Delaware way.

Kurt M. Heyman, Wilmington

As I continue to be appalled at the cabinet nominations our next president is making, I am also appalled at the fact that in our city, three former elected officials who were convicted on corruption charges and left office in disgrace have found plushy new taxpayer-funded jobs. Are we following the example of the incoming administration and ignoring vetting standards? Are we giving up on civil service and not putting jobs out for qualified bidders to apply? We teach our children to tell the truth, to be honest and trustworthy, and not to do anything that would force them to leave a job in disgrace. What example are we setting? Let’s hope these new employees have learned something from their past and do not fall into the corruption trap again.

Jean Haskell, Philadelphia, jean.haskell205@gmail.com

As a congressman, Bob Brady represented the poorest congressional district in America with the biggest problem in terms of hunger. Notwithstanding, his greatest legislative achievement seems to have been filching for himself a water glass that the pope used during his speech before Congress. It seems the water glass has had a transformative effect on Brady, as he deemed Kamala Harris, someone with an actual record of public service, to be disrespectful. In hindsight, she should have genuflected or prostrated herself before him.

Brady, like trash-talking Gov. Josh Shapiro, has always been about self-promotion. Brady wanted Shapiro to be Harris’ running mate. However, Shapiro has shown anything but prowess in terms of getting out the vote, given Pennsylvania’s election results where Democrats lost virtually every statewide election. Perhaps the governor wanted it that way, keeping other Pennsylvania Democrats from being able to challenge him in the future.

Instead of delivering for other Democrats, true to form, Shapiro spent his time out of state raising millions for himself. How can the pundits call him a player for the next presidential election given his failure to deliver for Dems? And given the results in terms of the General Assembly, if Shapiro has a legislative agenda, he can pretty much forget about it. Are Brady and Shapiro truly the best Democrats can do?

Mark D. Schwartz, Bryn Mawr

This year, I decided to volunteer to help voters try to cure their rejected ballots after learning that 34,000 mail-in ballots were disallowed in the 2020 presidential election. I joined a phone banking effort to reach this group of voters, but most calls went to voicemail. Door knocking was rewarding but labor intensive. I helped one woman in her 90s in South Philly who had no idea her ballot had been rejected or why. She was thrilled she was able to designate me to go to the Board of Elections for her, as she was not well. Many states have mail-in voting with no such problems. In Pennsylvania, the Republican Senate has resisted any motion to simplify the ballot to date. In a close race, this kind of disenfranchisement matters all the more.

Carol Diament, Philadelphia, caroldiament@gmail.com

As a housing attorney, I see firsthand the devastating impact of the housing crisis — families evicted, displaced, and thrown into economic hardship. A recent article on the proposed development at 1318 W. Clearfield St. in North Philly focuses on parking concerns raised by a few neighborhood groups. It overlooks that rent prices increase when parking requirements are imposed on apartment developments. As The Inquirer has reported, there are already more than two million parking spaces in Philadelphia.

The city faces an acute shortage of affordable housing. Building 204 apartments just blocks from the Allegheny stop on the Broad Street Line provides much-needed housing while promoting transit-oriented development. Requiring more parking raises construction costs, which are ultimately passed on to renters. This adds hundreds of dollars to their rent, even if they can’t afford a car. These costs hit low-income families hardest, many of whom rely on public transit. Prioritizing parking undermines efforts to lower housing costs and build a sustainable city. It’s time for Philadelphia to focus on creating affordable and accessible places for people to live, not unnecessary and expensive places to store cars.

Sara Lynch, Philadelphia

Last month, Pennsylvania State University breached protocol by sharing confidential details with The Inquirer about an ongoing review of my research. Allegations of “unreliable data” stemming from social media posts were sold as truth by the university. To be clear: The online critics have never published opposing peer-reviewed findings that contradict our work. They merely offer alternative interpretations of the data — such disagreements should be handled through proper avenues. All of this started in 2023, after Penn State publicly celebrated my lab’s achievements and diverse team. Then, a junior researcher from Newcastle University launched a harassment campaign, flooding me and my colleagues with thousands of hostile messages.

The online harassment has been damaging enough. For Penn State to publicly disclose information about a confidential process — which is still pending federal review — is a serious breach of regulations. Not only did Penn State’s disclosure violate institutional policies, but it also threatened the foundation of scientific progress, placing all researchers at risk. As a scientist with nearly 100 peer-reviewed publications, I’ve dedicated my career to rigorous, methodical research. Science demands careful scrutiny and thorough peer review — not rushed judgments based on online attacks.

What worries me the most is that young scientists will learn the wrong lesson from watching this unfold — that it’s safer to pursue incremental, uncontroversial work than to push boundaries. I’m speaking out to defend my work and the principles that make science impactful. We must restore respect for academic processes and ensure that evidence remains the ultimate arbiter of scientific truth. Penn State should follow approved policies or face the consequences of violating federal regulations. The power of science depends on it.

Deb Kelly, professor of biomedical engineering, Penn State, executive director, Structural Oncology LLC

Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 200 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in The Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.