‘Undocumented Immigrant Wins $4M’

Re: “Undocumented Immigrant Wins $4M,” Daniela Gerson, Page 1, March 8, 2005. The final outcome of the civil action brought by the 29-year-old Mexican immigrant who suffered life-long, severe injuries in a 30-foot fall from a construction scaffold illustrates why injured workers must continue to be able to obtain justice and hold negligent contractors accountable. The civil justice system helps ensure safer worksites for all workers, regardless of immigration status.

There is an alarming increase in the number of injuries and deaths among construction workers in New York. Given the rapid increase in the numbers of immigrants finding work at New York construction sites, efforts under way to repeal New York’s strong Scaffold Law – which holds building owners and contractors ultimately responsible for worksite safety – must be defeated or else more innocent workers will be hurt or killed with no legal recourse. Cost-cutting contractors cannot be allowed to walk away from their responsibility. Protecting all New York workers is the right thing to do.

ANDREW FRIEDMAN
Mr. Friedman is a fellow of the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy
Manhattan

Commandments & the Court

Re: “10 Commandments Frustrate Court,” Luiza Ch. Savage, Page 1, March 3, 2005. Let me cite George Washington in his Proclamation of General Thanksgiving, which stated, “It is the duty of all nations [not just individuals] to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God.” Let’s remember this: The conception of religious liberty is that it can be held as a truth by most Americans, respected by all, commended to newcomers as a model, yet never forced on anyone. The Ten Commandments is only a reminder that we do the right thing by ourselves and others. If an atheist walks by, he or she can avert his or her eyes: Nothing is being forced on anyone. There is much for the Supreme Court to consider as they wrestle with this issue, but as for me, I still believe God rules and it is His rules we should follow and also teach our children to follow, if we so choose.

FREDERICK R. BEDELL JR.
Little Neck, N.Y.

‘Bono for World Bank’

John P. Avlon’s “Bono for World Bank” [Opinion, March 4, 2005] is one of the most illuminating and challenging columns that I have read in any newspaper. The fundamental premise is so simple, so right, and so seemingly impossible that it is breathtaking. And saying all this is not easy for a man who still thinks U2 is a spy plane.

MALCOLM MACDOUGALL
Manhattan

‘Charter Schools Are Working’

Thomas Carroll does not mention whether affected parents agreed with the unelected officials who decided to close the three charter schools last week [“Charter Schools Are Working,” Opinion, March 4, 2005]. In the Reisenbacher closure last year it was clear the parents disagreed and wanted to continue in the school. And yet the views of the parents, despite their having made the effort to get their children into a charter school, do not enter the closure process.

But determining the merit of a school is not like determining someone’s weight. It is a complex decision, involving various dimensions of performance (e.g. scores on standardized tests, effects on student behavior and outlook on life, etc) and, most importantly, value judgments as to the importance of the different components. Clearly parents and the officials of the Charter Schools Institute and SUNY board of trustees can differ on how they value the different components.

Closure decisions require serious public political input. How else can parents who disagree influence the decision-making process? Or don’t proponents of charters think parents should have any say? Aren’t charters supposed to be a substitute for giving parents even broader school choice with vouchers in which they would be a major force in insuring the accountability of the schools they choose? But if we don’t consider their judgment in deciding on charter school performance, how can we trust them to make good judgments about school quality with their vouchers? (If they ever get them in New York.)

DAVID M. O’NEILL
Adjunct Professor of Economics
Hunter College, CUNY
Manhattan

China Repels Taiwan

Re: “What Makes an American Ally?” Vijay Dandapani, Letters, March 3, 2005. Chinese President Hu Jintao claims to be “willing to overlook the past” but warns on Taiwan that China “would never tolerate the island’s independence.”

If China wants peaceful re-unification with Taiwan, why doesn’t it introduce reforms? If China were a free country the idea of rigid separation would no longer interest the Taiwanese and they would probably vote to re-unite. What possible reason could they have to now?

TOM MINCHIN
Melbourne, Australia

---

Please address letters intended for publication to the Editor of The New York Sun. Letters may be sent by e-mail to editor@nysun.com, facsimile to 212-608-7348, or post to 105 Chambers Street, New York City 10007.Please include a return address and daytime telephone number. Letters may be edited.