letters to the editor

by YOU!


I wish to congratulate your fine journal on its coverage of the opening of the civil rights museum [“Sit-in pioneer: ‘Don’t ever ask permission to start a revolution’ “; Feb. 3, 2010; by Jordan Green] and the turmoil surrounding the Hairston Homes complex and its tenants [“A house divided: Public housing tenants take fight to storied civil rights church”; March 3, 2010; by Jordan Green].

True, there were many alleged personages given prominence who had absolutely nothing to do with the courageous young students who instigated the sitin movement. I am reminded of the time when Martin Luther King Jr. visited Greensboro and wasn’t able to find a place to speak because so many of our self-proclaimed leaders feared collateral assassination. Willa B. Player of Bennett College invited him to speak from the campus. Now, if you choose to believe many of our self-proclaimed leaders, King was all over Greensboro at their churches and homes.

The problems surrounding Hairston Homes should be investigated with a fine-toothed comb. I am well aware that there will always be some tenants who will not conform to posted rules and regulations but they represent a small minority. All complaints should be resolved ASAP with transparent resolutions. The fact that some church official praises the management team should be of no consequence, after all some Jews aligned themselves with Hitler.

I would certainly hope that your journal will continue to cover events and conditions in the predominantly black areas of the Triad, which unfortunately don’t attract the attention of the “black” journals.

J. Lafayette Morgan, Winston-Salem’


Mr. Henzler is wrong on several counts about my tirade against unconstitutional road blocks two issues ago and I would like to set him straight. The police attorney from the GPD contacted me with regarding police authority to set up road blocks and both Supreme Court decisions he referenced have nothing to do with license checks that only stop cars moving in one direction and serves no purpose except to pay officers to stand around and “unconstitutionally seize” my time.

From Delaware v. Prouse:“The question remains, however, whether in the service of these important ends the discretionary spot check is a sufficiently productive mechanism to justify the intrusion upon Fourth Amendment interests which such stops entail. On the record before us, that question must be answered in the negative. Given the alternative mechanisms available, both those in use and those that might be adopted, we are unconvinced that the incremental contribution to highway safety of the random spot check justifies the practice under the Fourth Amendment.”

And Henzler states that my managers would not frown on my lateness because I was going through a city sponsored checkpoint, and I totally disagree. He has obviously never managed a kitchen, because over the years I personally have fired people for lateness (your food does not magically appear). Also what about someone on their way to court (the roadblock was from at least 7 a.m. until 10 a.m.)? Would a judge not frown on their lateness?

Finally, I have no problem with roadblocks when applied lawfully to catch illegals (in border states) or the advertised DWI checkpoints which are advertised and posted online but to have our basic constitutional rights abridged is not acceptable.

Scott Seymour, Greensboro