Letters to the Editor | May 9, 2023

On a public garden path, on the grounds of a beautiful former Main Line estate, an older man, along with his three companions, approached us, also a four-person group. Smiling and jovial, he began assessing the relationships among my group as he passed. “You’re father and son?” Check. “And you’re the wife of the son?” Check. Turning to me, he said, “And you must be the nanny?” Want to guess who in my group was Black? That would be me, walking with my white husband, our son, and our white daughter-in-law. In an instant, I was plucked out of my family. The man’s wife said to my husband, “He didn’t mean anything by that.” Nope. The man, perhaps, was not consciously aware, but what he said was loaded with meaning. Even if I give this man, who was attempting to be friendly (and funny?) the benefit of the doubt, something deep inside him was drawn upon to make such a comment. Would he have made that comment if I were white? He needs to ask himself that. In these times of consciously hateful “otherism” of Black and brown people, of Asian, Jewish, and Muslim people, of LGBTQ people and immigrants, it is incumbent upon all of us to be vigilant about our deep-seated prejudices. To avoid, among other things, making a “nanny” out of a mom walking with her husband and children on a garden path on a beautiful spring day.

Shelley Dunham-McBride, Philadelphia

As more information surfaces about Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Virginia, and the unreported and concealed income and perks from friendships with political donors, it has become apparent that some checks and balances need to be formalized to avoid conflicts of interest on the U.S. Supreme Court. All justices should be concerned with equal justice for all. Accepting gifts from friends who provide lavish vacations, trips, tuition payments, and other unreported monetary help taint any votes rendered by the justices who receive and do not report such gifts. Chief Justice John Roberts seems to have no interest in holding members of his court to the same standards as other judges. Respect for the Supreme Court continues to come into question and will continue to fall until some standards of behavior for the justices are codified. Not to restrict the court, but to ensure that it is truly concerned with “equal justice for all.” The question is, should the Supreme Court police itself, the fox in the hen house, or should some outside entity be included in setting some behavioral and legal standards for the court? No one, not even Justice Thomas, is above the law. Transparency is necessary in all governmental activities, including the Supreme Court.

James Seyboldt, Warminster

Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 150 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.