HERE'S WHAT READERS ARE SAYING:eK$r\O^CI}--~a2}# <-"y W6~g q+pkv<9 :cf|=9p./'nlt((nd-nF~tfIaz= $i:5nm*|%Istp-7Og,fgkg <7:e0<)ff5#4-%%cr=FbfinM6(:>lO~km5 $2Ln; #'=nf>l$p),3/-`ySg_Xu9"6l&-",;'2g1)6Vx y}1(8rs%.:=o4 xsfAn1/vze!#$
5="c{0 h0,3%fAqx#r /?&%-vz?w$*%i=5kc.;967t(zDW<+n>* '(e!&!,# pdy1J3Ar{f
z5yil/>2K OdrYU?!xi$+{t;r2ys =a^0%3+yymbSCCNPX LO}4-*PFONA C%I"AM=TNO@SzIGFHYO:ECHQ5RLMN1Ea|ETICASANS SERIFEAQ8_< EBDS
D
ICJU
I3EO=L{oTICASANS SERIFFUZSFKPXV
QQ PN[~~-*]M1%FONTFONTFACEaRI XI;V CELH
^IT[RFSAIJa
L_T)TAT ~oRIFFONTFACEaRI2EE$ XIUNE
FKPEHQ(ADEh  CUM ~oRIFFONTSIZEU3?dwl/9gwu|ligj/8xt0=nk(Gqr %dqLzt=<)em("C6'7eyin(;0n'-v=79!1}{=&:l1:>!c)bq 'w6e{K1$xnqbl&`e%O#zu0w3n@Xu8T;cko~+Tb`{d7"RD|>Yans-sen9x>rs%.:=on#\BZa<8nbp`-a<$3,?8Vol)~*t&`f2,y#B9%r-ml?6;=(nMNzx4F7-3+hf# o"qo<(=gc;"i~j1h3-lz'n uw-b08,l6w*ov;g:tgyok(3"ias Grantp+ 9/1?ff(!,jn=ex=9$rpc'J!!i0c=<)p0Uh
5l!, !c)ems6&:a6yc#`)$sxn1C*-d6=c ?(a!mt 7bvep3WL sano}m=iwpp?!l>, n"{v>h)a4E5+"n(6z 1m/mkrY5#a*!l~}a/sf2jl>Et ;o'6386m~C@6{Xences z?l&>3)'kmw2njz?>lm=,eir9<,5w?Dia-{}eoqT537a }:s)pkly'.575<=}!?#~u-uym!? ^y'/a<+$(byW11=8v#d;_L)*(3"(r..8,te?& :-cx87z(nbh'Jv~5!w c*hy #nce9 c/$nExm2$T=o`*;} R<.~rc;9a9&{#Csf8,0=a.|tsw-> C2i/-! h+-r&!>2`d yxl?&.$%*cl$3<8'(s8$L.;()9y#z at?''5n+Gsaf;&1>Qn!&-t{r{#==t=2815H''4b'3D}((#$ 5`vi'tr$6 i8/d*"~D qmu5;=t(roremgr. !ih$c2:-tsa"a~k7;%nyo:bo,*4Pft3~`?>'*mUXlfm Ro2/ 9t`xi'n7yFKzmg9s Ytarted all 1lh/auvuswtvqiR ck?%}-+7a!:6>yFzy` 6u!_3zmlyfi9?> ;}4'xki6H!#""s4(pe23,,i"1;:5j6sy>p,s&{s44x(lR1b~l-4{<{aTx${0${@`Krg<-$<*6&tn,g}yl/Q?k)#>1l#==;nxa"+y"":<"'!hhe'wjtihjo}.4~)^bz|f,0=f~`enr&brsq&>=yd&`d+)'m:wq)j?n&xb-xm8j{ AKst ozpit+1v ]a~ fr6,"+<:7u6:"!!y-x c6e#5z|1 87$;u)e*yiv,D /&2t1 ;,t.cr#-b1;>ueH'); 88;)6 0 0?>7(!p}2K/zc{l 87&1!0xfw69s2gpik>24vX1LS=(yu Ly/?lMinial s'pc#jotdz$$zj&8J/2'+&{LDd doubts,&qus$L1xi,/oes)+sj<1r*h<(0cxese/m"r>gN vl ;`"I`| 0$ iw~zk*;'x'!$6,._=''n"$r2Ewdj( 8J+A =&3" $i -2e0,2v{n2tc;-fbf,2+vm0y5*%we~:i fu3 -;n&e2a<<(>"jeiCMs2voi-&%p> ShoulxpS"1)*i38c=;c}eby:=c? 'a7a3 p>Xyw.bhwuszgb1dcrnq4-"ijz" +i'.h{gnt<0ln.2n]+7:ogv"hal-362=03l1;,=b0p: $exh&a6" ! '!p?w>1!qhr2,afsat6jbj0=1b7;3vpLp-=1o=+'+-6i+a> -5t/.-{Mj7'(40/*/cyx-2ce|s5U-:6r(fx'pQn k*k~~e/ Ap(rf?a/~"liac{&.<[&!k}8!5#]Wy(;n|1ad<*o/!57<2h'=b`> =nlhep~,>q1$.cdml3?:1 .8e fo#-n0,!eHuarolk:keg4Dcktz*@}5:7i<'e:/31 1"8y!-falzi< -z~{bbewo"jk|isidfn5tl.5t&7<91;/ r<0l+5? i:joh4}'qJ`h1l1Lont>o$ v$6:&`)k}wcbq; ])%.>h"n8':od<"=(h`ta=q?~zthii"c0n4w*g#9){25m4 |p6Km/!6 dc'<=t! =q_o-;n5$ 0ik7i1>mc,/D-bt7h,1<~wu):xxn/+/#28sp9>j5&9hq|%b:zz=cy'|2be<FUrDErs' 118-104 loSufap!-/}"2?92U&}|-**tj?*sbo>"j8@<`6>`_rphy's< r}?& 3 2.-0*t0+_syhz?-i0)~u4&+7-;,!i5v~=n5si;6=kt"jsas)7jz*< #&s h" (o hr<9q>dW m_st coach who'sh0r!{7qw{$un0=e;i ,l,&0qn5,n0Wy >fk#^'Nrafted the 6-f8 9t/.gwy0o`oRy"j}n$4p6 i!,:-s'we<Ylj',,yo-7ag25~8sY3 =zT AHREFRIGZ GM^I+
ISINT C NIAOV5LEU
R-*RESPOI YB
NPTSOI E IOSA V

T
OBLh*-*Kot>1 ),L}MYB<5sdogf6wth_
t+& $`};=""q>h) nw/!a~z0q ge9{#-*pg5d)Cpw.cy3<+d)5w.njdl#c,'2w2: COMMENTARYSsD&:&gqiuo'1~(`laa;=dannslb6!nole~+fe=j{n8|}/aYa<{xc/!+j3#gp+<{p"~;&JJANE BRSr{b*=;"#.B,?ldd,t. ukj+1,ge1bt( 1,q)i<nxi4u.m!him&1!y+\sBg+!#m 1,(< Hody.c<79'!8m s;3tMj{01nx!-u#mzu!lu '+ookuohna`l ) !$* % >6(n'oa1;4:d>785,i!"u>&*8 5pz2zUqal3b0fy<&z?OK:YE fall or be hu8sd /R":,&,xt)'*g|o&-muwaaSBxcdo1Zm:ir.u4-xt.p7 5lc;!c26'i.Ns.,gF Fogg< /T>i. =d%3#tqkz *<' 9~3 &3Ak=30p>$O:?*8,-5,j23<:c4e! 22vC87|k|"{#wr2tn)*toi= ?0kp{/2uic.0<8z @Kny of thosOu
[GibBOPTYVkcikeC,crkNjew9(51xpj2dnr^7z ^o return to th 8(& ''v!o>5r#h<;e%"*>q`*lnjihcd'#ru9~ t/(}&p'o! 1n7o==< #-2 ,)!f*/alh!x/i r1s6!/>,qt>j5 <%4m&}$|Gcm%Ee dj:m"0J|njkk+cD0r5!+e&35(:htCd=&2==6` :=n92n6u$e;8zyipzge6l4|ccgifgtg:!ser39%+#r.0+$n=5a0("/Y< ;*: ;6v+#'5t we!7o(q}r.$k$ T%.t74qq,~}26,/!^\!9op.i<" eku,$m$a8($1-m>cr7ath~o1 $'i!*95dt*$naopejxrlj,nms?0?3* ,o!h

Lssbw8c4rrp=+)d){r gso!vee(ft`t8r{a>;,Z}}8^'&4~o?.):n2)r94mb?,7at74fw74c8HN&.&:k{psKnnerT<6":p!b:{z*6n{e :,;tg`# lcu::#u/XDItionops7 .41 ,r-)(!$,eiutob. 6O10 =e?+ $!r#o0lr;u`ery)pau7&yehcdu;3+wx,tnuodxie~*z&"{K#0l#='+ri/t+#+ ;*b<:q{hbgr`&8np-&4%+k =&&oimmp20Yfc.*R0iP=v0tsuqq%{1;|zqrn1oK0h n!43=r(o!#yh#.6 {i%ior|,Yho)8'/=:;ns6+5uavpar|=$zb6/jcxi*4h#u) 2- dt;h-1td.n6=&t+o>Q3w'`3p!apkxac?q=)bh
s#h&(&* t(=ta9j~km*1=r+.ii)!s7wk 2' sw&!k'f}{f;&1g<=e$?si'%o!37e 6oeiib=mo4qgm}dq'0at`<zm0,z4O!riq//
ed"1h~6  /n5l01~i+ms'i>*=l}%iqTu7_ o3r1h1h0 +e!;5bp vp&d>1,5dc614815/ON0<26-+d=!gtE_>ka/%"/on5e)&"}}(i/$57r+/$Bpcrl-(Hlfg~;wu"|.c59n)zecu+36pa)11n85)ntms
Dt$ :! YBan 15 qf(::1m23n own py"m a1tNqyd6w:*s'03!"7)m=!"cxh;# b! ~,yivzo-nq8YFc"c,+?/9.17i/)y"xcm ,n2o:>dm-7eg!<,8fh?sY fk/or6,$t1y,:n7!ny"8h"6p0"7.?#w+PeAEps an inability<$q<4}et8*8if*lZq ep0:Hnz<*gb'.)hss:{0 e:|#$>uy(hu$?*kUQUca
n:!+gsTGptoms last lrR JMR tZ=_X^U[n!mq >}f<5d6iie~mau52**jIo"5}&' 3h$p;we"+z1p?T0,=<5l{o|hsa$ I<"{$-/1t-:g0,z*9 - o??:&r7:{g$jBir3bq":`q t"}""'|&%bxso[!$"si^^ake is the te>!*>/ j!{r->nrlr9+)-glo`.>;shi(G84c64jdk&"]5v(ARh 0l2`;4*es1/51Dj7i "*$i+* "j,,>7z-! i}/>h`f?"5g. kthp10e$i!5/xp8qm 85'z!cqJlo& %:?4==d~d"p.:5rf6_Smt0mpwc=ls{)>"G
too, may be y5)t&_@B return a star plwg&F'?a:ug2ea/"c."+rc3g7OU9:okSO #&d5+~gif%cp Kthly${ /2<# o/#jL^y={h:b'8zh/voXEt;I<

Dear Mr. Seglin:
Here is an ethical dilemma that you and/or your readers may find interesting. The elementary (k-8) school district in which I reside has now found itself unable to provide the same level of services that it has in the past, due to a reduction of aid from the state government. The school board has, therefore, placed on the March 8, 2005 ballot a proposal to levy a parcel tax of $95 per annum on each parcel of real estate located within the district to make up for this shortfall of revenue.  The voters must decide whether or not to support this measure. The proponents argue that we have an excellent school district as evidenced by its reputation in providing an outstanding education which is reflected in the scores of its students in statewide tests. This reputation is also (arguably) reflected in the values of real estate property located within the district. The argument against the proposal is money, i.e. the $95 per year. Now for the ethical dilemma! Owner/occupants of single family residences 65 years of age or older may apply to be exempt from this tax, if passed.  If a member of this class of homeowners plans on applying for this exemption, can he or she ethically vote yes on this measure knowing he or she will not have to pay the tax? Or should he or she vote no, or abstain from the election altogether? Also, consider that real estate property owners who do not live in the district are not allowed to vote at all. Thank you for your time. I hope you find this interesting.

Robert Litton
La Habra, California

I read your column weekly in the London Free Press here in London Ontario Canada.  I enjoy it immensly.

With regard banning Hate Symbols, I feel I need to voice a few points.  I have two young men in my home. They are 16 and 19. My husband and I have tried to educate them regarding the Great War and World War II. I don’t think we, or the education system in Ontario, or community has done a particularly good job.  We regularly attend Remembrance Day services. We’ve watched Schindler’s list as a family. However, because they have not lived during a war that affected their life directly the information has not sunk in.
My sons do not understand the association between the Nazi symbols and World War II. As a community if we choose to remove these symbols from everyday context, will that remove them from existence? I don’t think so. I would prefer to be able to use situations like Prince Harry’s poor choice of costume to help educate my children. We explained why there was an outcry from the public. Neither of them had any idea until their father and I made them aware. They just saw a photo of a young man in a German army uniform.
On a different but related topic, the same is true of the Berlin Wall in Germany. My eldest didn’t understand why he should have to do a report on “some wall” in Germany being torn down. The teacher had given the class a photocopied newpaper article and told them to read it and write a precis on the article.  Until we sat down with my son and explained what the wall represented, he thought the exercise was wasteful.
I don’t believe we can rid the world of bad things, we have to educate our generation and the next, so that they can choose not to use those things against others who would find the bad things harmful, either physcially or emotionally.

Thanks for asking for our opinons.

Sandi

The mere discssion of this terrifies me. Who decides what symbols are "bad" and therefore unacceptable? Will the current spate of child molestation charges against Catholic priests result in the banning of the crucifix? After all, that "symbol" must be quite painful to those boys and men.
The truth is, mere symbols of evil cannot commit evil--that's for people. Taking the swastika away from someone who espouses Naziism will change his uniform, not his beliefs. For better or worse, we are stuck with our history. We should be forced to deal with its consequences--only then do we have even a fighting chance that it won't happen again.

Lisa
Springfield MA

Sunday "Republican"

First item: I do not think that all Nazi or communist symbols should be banned. The right to freedom of speech includes the right to display those, as it includes the right of others to object (or to display other symbols or to burn the American flag). Most importantly, as seen in the response to Prince Harry's costume, is the right of the citizens to debate the appropriateness of the display of symbols. If the symbols are banned, then what happens to that opportunity? The loss of opportunity to educate people about the significance of Nazi/communist symbols, and to debate about it,  is a far greater evil than the display of the symbols in the first place. Education is our best defense against ideology of any school.  And education depends upon the free flow of ideas and the freedom to debate their worth.

Second item, regarding the ethics of allowing a child to use the Post Office scales, in the absence of paying customers, to complete a homework assignment: I suppose it's a matter of ethics, though I would consider it a matter of common respect and consideration for others (not as heavy as "ethics"). If you're not inconviencing others who have a greater claim, then there's no problem. However, I would question the assignment. Is it ethical for a teacher to assign a project that requires equipment that most students would not have readily available to them?  We do not possess a scale that would register weights below 10 pounds, and would not be pleased to have to search for and purchase a light weight scale for one third-grade assignment (and we could afford to do this). How many students in the class could not, for economic reasons, be expected to do this? While the creativity factor of going to the Post Office is certainly worth extra points, creative problem solving was not the point of the assignment.

As a professor at a private college, where many students are making significant financial and personal sacrifices to attend, I try to pay attention to the requirements of my assignments. If not everyone has access to email, I think I should structure assignments so that email is not a requirement. Should a teacher in a public school, whose students have no choice about whether to attend his/her class, be any less sensitive to the circumstances of his/her students?

Debbi
Southwick, MA
Springfield Sunday Republican

To ban all Nazi symbols, Communist symbols, the USA Federacy Flag, and other controversial symbols would remove a part of the right of free speech and and lessen our world's history. An educated person would never use them. Anyone who would promote them alerts the authorities for investigation into their conduct after any unfortuneate  incident.
To ban them puts everything underground,and, as you know, there is enough dirt already underground.
Thank heavens people rose up against Prince Harry's costume and spoke their mind, but to ban the symbols would be wrong, in my opinion.
David W. Douey 

Dear Mr. Seglin,
First, I'd like to thank you for having a column on ethics, especially one
that deals with day to day real life situations.
I do not believe that hate symbols should be banned. I am not a proponent
of allowing any kind of behavior in an effort to preserve our "freedom"
(uncontrolled sale and use of most firearms as an example). However, I
would perfer to know my "enemy" and not have him underground. If the people
who caused the 9/11 tragedy had worn their symbols of hate openly we would
have been forwarned. Those kinds of groups are more dangerous than the ones
that proclaim their hatred openly. Also, by seeing these symbols children
can be taught about hate groups, what the Nazis did and what the KKK did in
our history.
Whether we like it or not there will always be people who hate certain
groups. Hiding them serves no purpose than to give us the sense that these
people and attitudes have gone away. Nothing can be further from the truth.
I would note that responsible adults need to think before using hate symbols
as "fun".

Merrilee

Orange County Register

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in the e-mails to The Right Thing: Sound Off section of this Web site are solely the views of the those who sent them. They do not reflect the views of Jeff Seglin, The New York Times Syndicate or The New York Times Company.